[Bug 253434] Review Request: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253434





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-08-27 15:06 EST -------
Okay, everything is perfect except for one small nit in the desription.  Thanks!

MUST items:

OK package is named appropriately
OK is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible.
OK specfile name matches %{name}
OK verify source and patches
NEEDS_FIXING skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
 - "... RPM specfiles maintenance ..." -> "... maintenance of RPM specfiles ..."
OK correct buildroot
OK if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form
OK license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing
OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - I'm fine with the odd permissions on the fetch script
OK changelog should be in one of these formats:
 [...]
OK Vendor tag should not be used
OK Distribution tag should not be used
OK use License and not Copyright 
OK Summary tag should not end in a period
OK if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK specfile is legible
OK package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK BuildRequires are proper
OK summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK description expands upon summary
OK make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK specfile written in American English
OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary
OK should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK use macros appropriately and consistently
OK don't use %makeinstall
OK install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK locale data handling correct (find_lang)
OK consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK package should probably not be relocatable
OK package contains code
OK package should own all directories and files
OK there should be no %files duplicates
OK file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK %clean should be present
OK %doc files should not affect runtime
OK verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs

  $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
  org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.rpmlint_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit)  
  org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.ui.editor_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit)  
  eclipse-rpm-editor = 0.1.0-2.fc8

  $ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm
  /bin/sh  
  /bin/sh  
  eclipse-changelog >= 2.5.1
  eclipse-platform >= 3.3.1
  java-gcj-compat  
  java-gcj-compat  
  libc.so.6()(64bit)  
  libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
  libdl.so.2()(64bit)  
  libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)  
  libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)  
  libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)  
  libm.so.6()(64bit)  
  libpthread.so.0()(64bit)  
  librt.so.1()(64bit)  
  libz.so.1()(64bit)  
  rpmdevtools  
  rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  rpmlint >= 0.81
  rtld(GNU_HASH)

OK run rpmlint on the binary RPMs (no output)

SHOULD items:

OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
? package should build on i386 (I tried x86_64)
? package should build in mock

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.