Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-nlspackager - Eclipse NLS package generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232709
fitzsim(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim(a)redhat.com 2007-03-16 18:31 EST -------
Some of my comments apply to the upstream project; since you are the upstream
maintainer, it's best to just fix the problems there.
The gcj_support macro usually controls native-compilation support. If you just
want to build noarch then remove the gcj_support stuff and leave this line:
BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1.4.2
That said, it's preferable to add full support for native compilation:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
X license field matches the actual license.
- the distributed zip file should contain a license and each source file
should likely have a license header
- it's cleaner if the zip file expands to a versioned directory, in this case:
nlspackager-0.1.2
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
? source and patches verified
- where does the zip file come from? I couldn't find a link to it
from
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Linux_Distributions_Project
* summary and description okay
- the description could be clearer; try to eliminate the this/that options
- there's a trailing space in the Summary field
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meets FHS (
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eclipse-nlspackager-0.1.2-1.src.rpm
W: eclipse-nlspackager non-standard-group Translations
- use a standard group (see output of rpmlint -i on this package)
$ rpmlint
/home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/eclipse-nlspackager-0.1.2-1.noarch.rpm
W: eclipse-nlspackager non-standard-group Translations
W: eclipse-nlspackager no-documentation
- include ChangeLog and LICENSE and probably a README file, marked with %doc
X changelog fine
- trailing space at the end of the %changelog entry
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License and not Copyright used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
- why is the copy-platform line commented out? this should be removed or
explained
- pushd blocks are easier to read if they're indented:
pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{eclipse_base}
mkdir plugins
popd
- the install section should just use install commands rather than mkdir,
pushd, popd, cp
- there's no need for the globbing in the %files section; just specify the
single file, org.eclipse.linuxtools.nlspackager_%{version}.jar
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
X BuildRequires are proper
- it would be nice if there were an explicit BuildRequires line for
eclipse-platform, which provides the eclipse binary (even though
eclipse-platform is pulled in by eclipse-rcp)
* summary is a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
- a few lines in the %build and %install sections should be wrapped
- you may want to use two-space indentation rather than tabs
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no static libs
* no rpath
* config files should marked with %config(noreplace)
* not a GUI app
* sub-packages fine
* macros used appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* Requires(pre,post) fine
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
X file permissions okay; %defattrs present
- take out the space before the first root
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a webapp
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.