[Bug 222365] Review Request: eclipse-changelog - simplifies the task of maintaining ChangeLogs for projects

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jan 17 22:38:30 UTC 2007


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-changelog - simplifies the task of maintaining ChangeLogs for projects


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222365





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-01-17 17:38 EST -------
Almost there.  Just fix the lines beginning with an X:

MUST:
X rpmlint on eclipse-changelog srpm gives this as output

W: eclipse-changelog non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)

Let's change this to Development/Tools as per:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204525#c5

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text included in package and marked with %doc

you'll need to include a copy of epl-v10.html and mark it with %doc in the
%files section

* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
the other arches in Fedora Core presently)

> please wait for the CDT bug to be filed regarding investigating building on
> all arches and then add its URL to the comment

* BuildRequires are proper
* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
  the doc plugins aren't usable outside of Eclipse so there's no point marking
  them as %doc
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* final provides and requires are sane

$ rpm -qp --requires eclipse-changelog-2.3.3-3.i386.rpm
/usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db  
/usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db  
eclipse-platform >= 1:3.2.0
java-gcj-compat  
java-gcj-compat  
libc.so.6  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
libdl.so.2  
libgcc_s.so.1  
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
libgcj_bc.so.1  
libm.so.6  
libpthread.so.0  
librt.so.1  
libz.so.1  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH) 

$ rpm -qp --provides eclipse-changelog-2.3.3-3.i386.rpm
changelog.jar.so  
eclipse-changelog = 1:2.3.3-3

SHOULD:
X package does not include license text
* package builds on i386 (and others in brew ATM ... I don't envision a
problem here)
* package functions in Eclipse (on FC6 ... not much has changed in rawhide in
the Eclipse stack so I don't anticipate anything rawhide-specific)
X package builds in mock
  my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
  here as the package currently builds fine in brew

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list