[Bug 222350] Review Request: eclipse-cdt - C/C++ Development plugins 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-cdt - C/C++ Development plugins for Eclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222350


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|overholt at redhat.com         |bkonrath at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-01-12 11:22 EST -------
And now some comments about the specfile:

. don't use pkg_summary.  just put the summary in Summary:
. I don't think we need eclipse_name.  just replace that with eclipse in its 3 uses.
. get rid of the section macro
. I hate that there's an epoch but there's nothing we can do about that now
. arch-specific plugins such as org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux should be moved to
%{_libdir}/eclipse
. does the CDT still use ctags?
. do any of the jars contain arch-specific bits (.sos, etc.) that may make it
multilib-incompatible?
. eclipse_lib_base isn't currently used but it will be when you move the
arch-specific plugins there
. I think the instructions for generating the tarball no longer hold. 
Specifically, I think it should now be:

eclipse -Duser.home=../../home -application <everything else>
. is the autotools stuff all licensed properly?  ie. it's all EPL and it all has
the correct copyright notices in the files?
. could we add comments for all of the patches?  It would greatly help figuring
out why we're patching and what each patch is doing.
. is CPPUnit support EPL?
. should we require gcc?  what about gcc-c++?  Perhaps gdb and/or make already
require those ...
. can we look at adding all of the arches?  or at least can we add a comment
specifying why we're only building on the 4 we are?
. the sdk's %description is weak.  look at the sdk %descriptions in eclipse.spec
. we shouldn't have links between /usr/share/eclipse and /usr/lib/eclipse for
the .sos.  Ben, what do you think about this one?

-- 
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.