Just some preliminary comments:
Remove the Buildroot definition, it is no longer needed.
Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-).
Remove the entire %clean section.
Install the pom.xml files using add_to_maven_depmap.

2 things:
* There is no point to install the pom for now - because we don't have functional tycho yet and the linuxtools parent.
* add_maven_depmap is the new macro which is a lot easier to use though this might be a bit irrelevant for this review

I assume from Alex's comment that I don't need to install the pom or use add_maven_depmap at the moment.  eclipse-oprofile, eclipse-changelog, etc..., none of these use add_maven_depmap or install the pom files at the moment.

I have performed the other suggestions per Andrew's comments above.'

Rpm and spec file updated.

Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/newlib/eclipse-gcov.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sourceware.org/newlib/eclipse-gcov-0.6.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc16.src.rpm

bash $ rpmlint eclipse-gcov-0.6.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc16.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bash $ rpmlint eclipse-gcov-0.6.0-0.1.20110718gitc011a2c7a0.fc16.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Correct, maven integration is practically impossible now and providing poms will only confuse.

Andrew, when you review you have to assign the bug to yourself, change the state to assigned and set the fedora-review flag to ?

Andrew, you forgot to change the status to assigned. You're also expected to give a review according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java_review_template and requesting changes from Jeff until you approve it after which you should state that and change the fedora-review flag to +

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X]  Rpmlint output:
[X]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[X]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[X]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[X]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[X]  Buildroot definition is not present
[X]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4].
[X]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[X]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9
MD5SUM upstream package:4399a60eb5915dab8bc3287f990d24b3
However, recursive diff of extracted tarballs produce no diffs, so not a blocker.
[X]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason
[X]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[X]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
[X]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[-]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[X]  Package uses %global not %define
[X]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[X]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building
[X]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[-]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

=== Other suggestions ===
[-]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X]  Latest version is packaged.
[X]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

No issues with the package. APPROVED.

Please include a SCM request.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: eclipse-gcov
Short Description: Eclipse gcov support
Owners: jjohnstn
Branches:
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: eclipse-gcov
New Branches: f16
Owners: jjohnstn

Git done (by process-git-requests).

 Built in rawhide long ago.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257702