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-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212045 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-25 11:51 EST ------- Some comments about the spec file: The fedora and redhat macros don't seem to be needed. Can't you just define gcj_support to 0 or 1? Similarly, the majmin macro is only used once, so it is not needed. The fetching instructions are fairly involved. Does upstream not release tarballs? How do you know that build_200609210005 corresponds to the 2.2.1 sources? If fetching from CVS is the only option (as I've heard it is for some Eclipse projects) then why don't you include this fetching script as a source in the SRPM? That way it can be committed to FE CVS and used to create tarballs of subsequent "releases". (I tried to run the commented fetch script but the patch sections failed. Somehow the tabs in the original patch have been converted to spaces in the comment, so patch can't locate the correct context. Also, try the 'patch -p0 << "_EOF_"' form instead of manually escaping each $ character.) Should the bootclasspath munging be done as a patch? Or maybe it can be eliminated altogether: if you specify bootclasspath, you need to make sure that libgcj.jar or rt.jar is still on the resulting bootclasspath. That is one reason why you'd see "java.lang.Object cannot be found". One other thing: I think license.html should be marked %doc. I'll post the MUST/SHOULD checklist as a separate comment. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review