Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14274581

See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WildFly#Current_progress

@ Luya
please, can you proceed with the review when you have some time?

I will do. Earlier I realized mock was set to f23 version causing this error:

DEBUG util.py:417:   --> metainf-services-1.5-5.fc23.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:  Error: No Package found for mvn(org.wildfly.common:wildfly-common)
DEBUG util.py:542:  Child return code was: 1

(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #4)
> I will do. Earlier I realized mock was set to f23 version causing this error:
> 
> DEBUG util.py:417:   --> metainf-services-1.5-5.fc23.noarch
> DEBUG util.py:417:  Error: No Package found for
> mvn(org.wildfly.common:wildfly-common)
> DEBUG util.py:542:  Child return code was: 1

Please, use:
fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386
or
fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #4)
> > I will do. Earlier I realized mock was set to f23 version causing this error:

> Please, use:
> fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386
> or
> fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
or

fedpkg scratch-build --nowait --arches [YOUR PREFERRED ARCH] path/to/file.src.rpm
koji-download-scratch ...
fedora-review -vpn  wildfly-elytron --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-[YOUR PREFERRED ARCH]

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #4)
> > > I will do. Earlier I realized mock was set to f23 version causing this error:
> 
> > Please, use:
> > fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386
> > or
> > fedora-review -b 1328064 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> or
> 
> fedpkg scratch-build --nowait --arches [YOUR PREFERRED ARCH]
> path/to/file.src.rpm
> koji-download-scratch ...
> fedora-review -vpn  wildfly-elytron --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-[YOUR
> PREFERRED ARCH]
or enable locale repo

fedora-review -b 1328064 -m fedora-[REL]-i386 --local-repo [PATH TO LOCAL REPO]

Thank you for the tips. I wrote them for the future reviews. Back to this package:

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 1 files have unknown license. 
     
     Unknown or generated
     --------------------
     wildfly-elytron-1.0.2.Final/README.md

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
     Note: Spelling name of elytron is meant for explaination in description
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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 metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wildfly-
     elytron-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: wildfly-elytron-1.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          wildfly-elytron-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          wildfly-elytron-1.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
wildfly-elytron.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ĕl 
wildfly-elytron.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ĭ 
wildfly-elytron.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trŏn 
wildfly-elytron.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elytra -> Electra
wildfly-elytron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ĕl 
wildfly-elytron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ĭ 
wildfly-elytron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trŏn 
wildfly-elytron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elytra -> Electra
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


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

wildfly-elytron (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(com.sun:tools)
    mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging)



Provides
--------
wildfly-elytron-javadoc:
    wildfly-elytron-javadoc

wildfly-elytron:
    mvn(org.wildfly.security:wildfly-elytron)
    mvn(org.wildfly.security:wildfly-elytron:pom:)
    wildfly-elytron



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/wildfly-security/wildfly-elytron/archive/1.0.2.Final.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5384d4aee103e72b7d2ffbe51acc95b95e3ba8e3106e2ab82b3a0c839f4fbf8a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5384d4aee103e72b7d2ffbe51acc95b95e3ba8e3106e2ab82b3a0c839f4fbf8a

Based on the above review, this report is now approved.

thanks for the review
create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5754
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5755

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/wildfly-elytron

wildfly-elytron-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dc4f42f41c

wildfly-elytron-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dc4f42f41c

wildfly-elytron-1.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.