[Bug 269421] Review Request: eclipse-egit - Eclipse Git plugin
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Sep 6 18:09:06 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-egit - Eclipse Git plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=269421
------- Additional Comments From bkonrath at redhat.com 2007-09-06 14:09 EST -------
New files:
http://bagu.org/eclipse/eclipse-egit.spec
http://bagu.org/eclipse/eclipse-egit-0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'll take this. Things are generally pretty good. There are just a few minor
> things (lines beginning with NEEDS_FIX) and some questions (lines beginning
with ?):
>
> MUST items:
>
> OK package is named appropriately
> OK is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
> ? license field matches the actual license.
> - it says in the git web repo that some of it is LGPL ... but I can't see
> what parts - can you? I'm okay with the dual GPLv2 and EPL as that's what
> I can see.
The tests are LGPL but we're not shipping them. Should I add LGPL to the License
line because it's included in the src.rpm?
> OK license is open source-compatible.
> OK specfile name matches %{name}
> ? verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
> - I can't get the same md5sum but the contents are the same. Did you use wget?
No, wget doesn't work with the git web repo. I manually clicked on the link to
get the file.
> OK skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> OK correct buildroot
> OK if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations)
> OK license text included in package and marked with %doc
> - license text included in jar so can't mark as %doc
> OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
> OK rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> $ rpmlint eclipse-egit-0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8.src.rpm
> W: eclipse-egit invalid-license EPL GPLv2
>
> - this is fine since it's dual-licensed software
>
> OK changelog should be in one of these formats:
> [...]
> OK Packager tag should not be used
> 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 (don't include installation instructions)
> OK make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> - they are, where possible
> OK specfile written in American English
> OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary
> OK packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
> OK don't use rpath
> OK config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
> OK GUI apps should contain .desktop files
> 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
> NEEDS_FIX %clean should be present
> - you have ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT elsewhere
Fixed.
> OK %doc files should not affect runtime
> OK if it is a web app, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
> NEEDS_FIX verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
>
> - do we need a Requires on eclipse-platform?
Yes, it should have that. Fixed.
> $ rpm -qp --requires
> ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-egit-0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8.x86_64.rpm
> /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
> /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
> java-1.5.0-gcj >= 1.5.0
> java-1.5.0-gcj >= 1.5.0
> 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)
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
> $ rpm -qp --provides
> ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-egit-0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8.x86_64.rpm
> org.spearce.egit.core_0.2.2.200708311149.jar.so()(64bit)
> org.spearce.egit.ui_0.2.2.200708311149.jar.so()(64bit)
> org.spearce.jgit_0.2.2.200708311149.jar.so()(64bit)
> eclipse-egit = 0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8
>
> NEEDS_FIX run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
>
> $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-egit-0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8.x86_64.rpm
> W: eclipse-egit no-documentation
> - okay
> W: eclipse-egit incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.2-1.fc8
> 0.2.2-0.git20070826.fc8
> - please fix
Fixed.
> W: eclipse-egit invalid-license EPL GPLv2
> - this is fine ... unless we discover some LGPL stuff
>
> SHOULD items:
>
> OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> - fine
> ? package should build on i386
> - it builds on x86_64 :)
> OK package should build in mock
> NEEDS_FIX we should probably fill in some of feature.xml such as the licence
section
I added the information that I could. This patch really needs to be upstream so
that this information can be filled in properly.
> ? should there be any user-visible eclipse features other than Team->Share?
> No checkout? I know you said they were making a new release soon with a
> whole bunch of new features so should we wait until then? I'm legitimately
> asking, not trying to be snide.
IMO this plugin needs a lot of work to be functional. I asked one of the
developers about their timeline but haven't received a reply yet.
> I notice a lot of stuff being spewed to the
> console as well ... do they have a bug tracker upstream?
No, not that I know of.
> I guess what I'm
> trying to say is that we shouldn't have it be installed by default in the
> Eclipse group of comps.xml just yet. What do you think?
That seems reasonable.
> ? should we split the package into two: the java git implementation and the
> eclipse plugin? I guess we can do that in the future if anything else
> starts using the java git implementation
Yeah, I think it should be kept together until something needs it.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list