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-vrapper - Vim-like editing in Eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659856
Summary: Review Request:eclipse-vrapper - Vim-like editing in Eclipse Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jkeating@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-vrapper/eclipse-vrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-vrapper/eclipse-vrapper-0.15... Description:
Vrapper is an eclipse plugin which acts as a wrapper for eclipse text editors to provide a Vim-like input scheme for moving around and editing text.
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=659856
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |akurtako@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-12-04 05:11:11 EST --- 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=659856
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-12-04 05:33:41 EST --- What do you think about compiling/installing jdt/cdt parts too? It might make sense to make them subpackages because they requires jdt/cdt respectively.
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=659856
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-12-04 05:44:37 EST --- Oh and there is http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1697 implementation too. It doesn't need other dependencies so it should be safe to go into the main package.
%{_libdir}/eclipse/buildscripts/pdebuild -f net.sourceforge.vrapper.plugin.surround %{_libdir}/eclipse/buildscripts/pdebuild -f net.sourceforge.vrapper.eclipse.jdt.feature -d jdt %{_libdir}/eclipse/buildscripts/pdebuild -f net.sourceforge.vrapper.eclipse.cdt.feature -d cdt
is all you need to build them all. There will be 3 more zips generated in the rpmbuild folder which you can extract to the proper places.
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=659856
--- Comment #4 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-06 19:07:07 EST --- I didn't consider those because they weren't built in the upstream vrapper packages. I don't know what their stability status is, but I'll try 'em.
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=659856
--- Comment #5 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-06 21:01:30 EST --- Erm, getting some errors on the jdt build:
generateScript: [eclipse.buildScript] Some inter-plug-in dependencies have not been satisfied. [eclipse.buildScript] Bundle net.sourceforge.vrapper.aptana.ide: [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.editor.html_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.editors_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.core_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.core.ui_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Bundle net.sourceforge.vrapper.eclipse.cdt: [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.cdt.ui_5.1.1.
And more for cdt:
generateScript: [eclipse.buildScript] Some inter-plug-in dependencies have not been satisfied. [eclipse.buildScript] Bundle net.sourceforge.vrapper.aptana.ide: [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.editor.html_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.editors_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.core_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in com.aptana.ide.core.ui_1.5.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Bundle org.eclipse.cdt.launch.remote: [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.ui_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.subsystems.shells.core_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.subsystems.files.core_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.core_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.services_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.files.ui_[3.0.0,4.0.0). [eclipse.buildScript] Bundle org.eclipse.tm.tcf.rse: [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.core_0.0.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.ui_0.0.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.services_0.0.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.subsystems.files.core_0.0.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.subsystems.processes.core_0.0.0. [eclipse.buildScript] Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.rse.processes.ui_0.0.0.
I think I'll leave those disabled and just do the core and surround stuff.
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=659856
--- Comment #6 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-06 21:24:16 EST --- Spec URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-vrapper/eclipse-vrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/review/eclipse-vrapper/eclipse-vrapper-0.15...
New stuff posted.
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=659856
--- Comment #7 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-20 13:50:20 EST --- ping?
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=659856
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-12-21 03:03:26 EST --- Sorry for the delay. I forgot about it. Review will follow shortly.
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=659856
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-12-21 04:40:16 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: eclipse-vrapper.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging Not a problem. eclipse-vrapper.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.15.0-0.2.svn ['0.15.0-0.2.svn351.fc14', '0.15.0-0.2.svn351'] Please fix. eclipse-vrapper.noarch: W: no-documentation If there is nothing suitable, it's ok. [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] 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: GPLv3+ [-] 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. [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 consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [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 [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, ...) [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.
Issues: * Incoherent changelog * Do we need BuildRoot and clean section? * If you use svn export and compress the tarball as xz you will get 4 times smaller Source0.
Nothing major though.
This package is 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=659856
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review |Review Request: |Request:eclipse-vrapper - |eclipse-vrapper - Vim-like |Vim-like editing in Eclipse |editing in Eclipse
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=659856
Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-21 17:17:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-vrapper Short Description: Vim-like editing in Eclipse Owners: jkeating Branches: f14 InitialCC:
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=659856
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-12-22 12:18:52 EST --- 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=659856
Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2010-12-31 16:27:24
--- Comment #12 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2010-12-31 16:27:24 EST --- Built for F14 and rawhide.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org