[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537
Andrew Overholt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|overh...@redhat.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt 2011-04-28 15:05:54
EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
eclipse-mylyn-builds.src:93: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} (this isn't used
in the .spec above but *is* in the SRPM)
eclipse-mylyn-builds.src:93: W: macro-in-comment %{install_loc} (this isn't
used in the .spec above but *is* in the SRPM)
eclipse-mylyn-builds.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_javadir} (this isn't used
in the .spec above but *is* in the SRPM)
eclipse-mylyn-builds.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
eclipse-mylyn-builds-R_3_5_0-fetched-src.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[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 (tested on
x86_64 F15/rawhide)
[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: EPL
[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.
[x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[!] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
- replace "eclips" with "eclipse" to make it a bit more readable
[-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[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] 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.
[x] 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)
[-] 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, ...)
- I generated the exact same tarball using the provided shell script
[x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
- one JAR used for testing so this is okay
[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
=== 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)
[!] Latest version is packaged.
- I think 3.5.1 is out
=== Issues ===
1. why is ws-jaxme a BR but not an R?
2. perhaps have Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0 to ensure 1.6-level JVM is used?
3. please include a link to a .spec that matches that which was used to create
the SRPM
4. have you run the patch by upstream (the 1.6 part)?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 --- Comment #2 from Severin Gehwolf 2011-04-28 16:06:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > === Issues === > 1. why is ws-jaxme a BR but not an R? It is a requirement for eclipse-mylyn-builds-hudson (only). > 2. perhaps have Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0 to ensure 1.6-level JVM is used? Good idea, thanks! Fixed. > 3. please include a link to a .spec that matches that which was used to create > the SRPM New SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds-3.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Updated spec file: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds.spec > 4. have you run the patch by upstream (the 1.6 part)? Initially, they had used some non Glassfish specific code, but that didn't work on java 5. See Eclipse bug 325176. I commented on the bug regarding our issue, but I don't think it's applicable for upstream. I've also updated to 3.5.1. Thanks for the review, Andrew. Let me know if there is more to fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt 2011-04-28 16:27:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > 1. why is ws-jaxme a BR but not an R? > > It is a requirement for eclipse-mylyn-builds-hudson (only). Sorry, I missed that. > > 3. please include a link to a .spec that matches that which was used to > > create > > the SRPM > > New SRPM: > http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds-3.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm > Updated spec file: > http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds.spec Great, the .spec files match and contain all necessary changes. > > 4. have you run the patch by upstream (the 1.6 part)? > > Initially, they had used some non Glassfish specific code, but that didn't > work > on java 5. See Eclipse bug 325176. I commented on the bug regarding our issue, > but I don't think it's applicable for upstream. Thanks for referencing the bug. For those playing along at home, Severin will be opening a bug to request that upstream's solution works for non-Glassfish implementations of this class. In the meantime, this patch is fine by me. > I've also updated to 3.5.1. Great, and I see you updated the qualifier, too, which is perfect. The only remaining nit I have is "s/eclips/eclipse/g" :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 --- Comment #4 from Severin Gehwolf 2011-04-28 17:17:29 EDT --- New SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds-3.5.1-2.fc15.src.rpm Updated spec file: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-builds.spec Fixed the eclipse typo. I hope it's ok now :) Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 Andrew Overholt changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt 2011-04-28 17:21:56 EDT --- Thanks, that looks good. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Severin Gehwolf 2011-04-29 13:30:25 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-mylyn-builds Short Description: Eclipse Mylyn Builds Owners: jerboaa Branches: f15 InitialCC: overholt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-04-30 14:14:54 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 700537] Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-builds - Eclipse Mylyn Builds
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700537 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-05-02 10:55:11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
