Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-context - Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696813
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-mylyn-context - Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sgehwolf@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context-3.5.0-1.fc1... Description: Provides the Eclipse Mylyn Task-Focused Interface.
This source RPM depends on eclipse-mylyn and eclipse-mylyn-commons. To make it easier for the reviewer, I'm providing binary RPMs for them here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/bin-rpms/
If someone prefers SRPMs, they can be found here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/
Thanks for reviewing :)
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=696813
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-15 02:59:21 EDT --- I'll do this one.
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=696813
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-15 08:04:18 EDT --- After looking at the spec I think it would be better if we keep the standard subpackages names with proper obsoletes/provides instead. I.e. eclipse-mylyn-context-java rpm providing eclipse-mylyn-java and obsoleting eclipse-mylyn-java < currentrelease. Also please remvoe the huge changelog this is new package after all. Other than that the package looks really good.
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=696813
--- Comment #3 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com 2011-04-15 12:00:18 EDT --- I've updated SRPM and spec file. Could you please have a look if it's ok now? Thanks!
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=696813
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-18 06:09:45 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: eclipse-mylyn-context-pde.noarch: W: self-obsoletion eclipse-mylyn-pde < 3.5.0-1.fc14 obsoletes eclipse-mylyn-pde eclipse-mylyn-context-java.noarch: W: self-obsoletion eclipse-mylyn-java < 3.5.0-1.fc14 obsoletes eclipse-mylyn-java eclipse-mylyn-context-cdt.noarch: W: self-obsoletion eclipse-mylyn-cdt < 3.5.0-1.fc14 obsoletes eclipse-mylyn-cdt Please add version to the provides. [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. [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 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] 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) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [-] 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, ...) [x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [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 [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)
=== Issues === 1. Add versions to the virtual provides. 2. Remove cleaning of buildroot from beginning of %install 3. Use %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT consistently. 4. Add version to the mylyn BR/R e.g. BR: eclipse-mylyn >= 3.5.0 this will ease the building/installation for upgraders/testers
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=696813
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-18 06:12:01 EDT --- Ooops, 3. is not an issue.
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=696813
--- Comment #6 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com 2011-04-18 09:28:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
=== Issues ===
- Add versions to the virtual provides.
Fixed.
- Remove cleaning of buildroot from beginning of %install
Done.
- Add version to the mylyn BR/R e.g. BR: eclipse-mylyn >= 3.5.0 this will ease
the building/installation for upgraders/testers
Done.
Updated spec file is here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context.spec
Thanks!
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=696813
--- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com 2011-04-18 09:29:37 EDT --- SRPM is here: http://fedorapeople.org/~jerboaa/rpm/mylyn/eclipse-mylyn-context-3.5.0-2.fc1...
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=696813
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-18 09:47:07 EDT --- Thanks, looks good.
APPROVED.
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=696813
Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com 2011-04-18 10:07:58 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-mylyn-context Short Description: Eclipse Mylyn task focused plug-ins Owners: jerboaa akurtakov Branches: f15 InitialCC: overholt
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=696813
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-18 14:10:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=696813
Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-04-18 17:23:55
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org