I-ll review this one. 

There are open issues about the handling of licenses and the possible need for an epoch in bug #1199567.  Awaiting this to be resolved before making this review, since this affects also this bug.

Assigning, forgot that.

Since it hasn't been reviewed yet, I've merely updated the original version to remove the unnecessary epoch, as it's been clarified for me that it's not required.

Per the clarification from the other bug report, I've redone the package without license file going into %doc, since it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Looks basically OK. Issues:

  -  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/jsemver
     Seems like a bug in xmvn-install (?). For the time being the
     easy fix might be to claim the directory using %dir.
  -  Please  remove all class and .jar files in %prep to make sure no
     prebuilt binaries are used in the build process. This is not
     strictly required by the GL in this case since the upstream is
     "clean" in this sense, but it's a god habit to avoid surprises
     when upstream is updated.
  -  PLease dont add the docs to both the -javadoc and the main package [1]

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles

Also: there are no supported versions of fedora which provides maven-compiler-plugin < 3.1, maven-javadoc-plugin < 2.9.1 or junit < 4.11. So unless you plan to deploy this also on epel, the versioned dependencies makes no sense.

I've replaced the spec and srpm with updated versions to correct those issues. However, I prefer not to remove the version declarations for the plugins and junit as it isn't hurting anything there.

Please update the changelog and release when updating spec. Also provide new links after your changes [1]

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

Per the rules in the packaging guidelines, I have not incremented the release numbers, as it has not entered the buildsystem. However, I have added the changelog entry information to the initial one.

This might work for some reviewers, but I wouldn't count in it. The normal albeit undocumented (?) workflow is to provide new links besides very minor changes. However, For now, it works with this reviewer.

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mk/tmp/1196925-jsemver/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jsemver-
     javadoc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          jsemver-javadoc-0.8.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
jsemver-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Requires
--------
jsemver-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

jsemver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils


Provides
--------
jsemver-javadoc:
    jsemver-javadoc

jsemver:
    jsemver
    mvn(com.github.zafarkhaja:java-semver)
    mvn(com.github.zafarkhaja:java-semver:pom:)


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/zafarkhaja/jsemver/archive/0.8.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f5a745f42d929f90ea11694ef036318a6dc2130bdf4b05a76cd843e461750534
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f5a745f42d929f90ea11694ef036318a6dc2130bdf4b05a76cd843e461750534

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1196925
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

All blockers fixed.

*** Approved

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jsemver
Short Description: A Java implementation of the Semantic Versioning Specification
Upstream URL: https://github.com/zafarkhaja/jsemver
Owners: ngompa
Branches: f21 f22
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc21

jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc22

jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

jsemver-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.