I will take this review.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- While NOTICE.md does say that the license is EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with an
  exception, please note that this file is licensed ASL-2.0:

  jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java

  So the License field should be (I think):

  (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0

- The javadoc subpackage does not actually contain any javadocs.

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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

===== 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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.
[x]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jakarta-ws-rs-2.1.6-7.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc-2.1.6-7.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-ws-rs-2.1.6-7.fc34.src.rpm
jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxrs-api/archive/2.1.6/jaxrs-api-2.1.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 09a1438ed7fe8cb535ef295d1d706f5dfccbe666cc2aaca6bddab7f2c6f7aaad
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09a1438ed7fe8cb535ef295d1d706f5dfccbe666cc2aaca6bddab7f2c6f7aaad


Requires
--------
jakarta-ws-rs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
jakarta-ws-rs:
    glassfish-jax-rs-api
    jakarta-ws-rs
    mvn(jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api)
    mvn(jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api:pom:)
    mvn(javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api)
    mvn(javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:pom:)
    osgi(jakarta.ws.rs-api)

jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc:
    glassfish-jax-rs-api-javadoc
    jakarta-ws-rs-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1868994 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --no-bootstrap-chroot --isolation=simple
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Java, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ruby, R, Python, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Issues:
> =======
> - While NOTICE.md does say that the license is EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with an
>   exception, please note that this file is licensed ASL-2.0:
> 
>   jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java
>
>   So the License field should be (I think):
> 
>   (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0

Good catch. I have corrected it with these two lines:

# ASL 2.0: jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java
License:        (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0

> - The javadoc subpackage does not actually contain any javadocs.

Right ... I kept the -javadoc package as a "placeholder" so they can be added back seamlessly once the xmvn-javadoc bug is fixed.
I've now dropped it and added a more prominent note above the "%mvn_build -j" with a link to the upstream xmvn bug.

Updated files, URLs are the same.

Looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

Thanks!

I also added you as the Assignee in addition to you being "QA Contact" (whatever that is).
Why those two "edit" buttons are so close together, I'll never know.

Well that was clumsy of me.  Let's set the QA Contact back to the default, shall we?

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-ws-rs

Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1593951
And for fedora 33:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1593952

I have also retired the old glassfish-jax-rs-api package.