Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm

I will take this review.

Issues
======
- The URLs in this bug point to the noarch.rpm instead of the src.rpm.  I
  guessed the correct URL, but this breaks fedora-review -b <bug number>.

- No build logs are visible.  Instead, all I see is this:

Executing: xmvn --batch-mode --offline -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 verify org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep
['xmvn', '--batch-mode', '--offline', '-Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8', 'verify', 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install', 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate', 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep']
SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details.

  Since slf4j is not mentioned anywhere in this project, does this mean that
  something in the maven stack is missing a dependency?

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.
[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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[?]: 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.
     Tests are normally run as part of the build process, but since no usable
     build logs are produced, I cannot verify that that is the case for this
     project.
[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: aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          aries-blueprint-parser-javadoc-1.4.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
aries-blueprint-parser.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
aries-blueprint-parser.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
aries-blueprint-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools

aries-blueprint-parser-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools



Provides
--------
aries-blueprint-parser:
    aries-blueprint-parser
    mvn(org.apache.aries.blueprint:blueprint-parser)
    mvn(org.apache.aries.blueprint:blueprint-parser:pom:)

aries-blueprint-parser-javadoc:
    aries-blueprint-parser-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint-parser/1.4.0/blueprint-parser-1.4.0-source-release.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 88ccb313f7f7f100afac85b1d49df058fb4b144323cb26c1215b64e535d2709c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88ccb313f7f7f100afac85b1d49df058fb4b144323cb26c1215b64e535d2709c


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n aries-blueprint-parser -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-cleanup-after --enablerepo=local
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

I see no blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> Issues
> ======
> - The URLs in this bug point to the noarch.rpm instead of the src.rpm.  I
>   guessed the correct URL, but this breaks fedora-review -b <bug number>.
Sorry,

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

> - No build logs are visible.  Instead, all I see is this:
> 
> Executing: xmvn --batch-mode --offline -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8
> verify org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate
> org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep
> ['xmvn', '--batch-mode', '--offline',
> '-Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8', 'verify',
> 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install',
> 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate',
> 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep']
> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
> details.
> 
>   Since slf4j is not mentioned anywhere in this project, does this mean that
>   something in the maven stack is missing a dependency?
is caused by a missing build dep: xmvn

Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7139
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7140

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/aries-blueprint-parser

aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1292d8230a

aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4eb1ca90a4

aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-4eb1ca90a4

aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.