[Bug 213594] Review Request: eclipse-phpeclipse

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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-phpeclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213594





------- Additional Comments From green@xxxxxxxxxx  2006-12-19 16:42 EST -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/eclipse-phpeclipse.spec
> SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-13.src.rpm

Thanks.  

This is almost ready.  See lines starting with 'X' below.

* package meets and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present. 
* build root is correct.  
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* License text included in package.
* source files match upstream (extracted from upstream cvs so no md5sum available.)
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.

X rpmlint on eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-13.fc6.i386.rpm says:
W: eclipse-phpeclipse wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/eclipse/features/net.sourceforge.phpeclipse_1.1.8/cpl-v10.html

Fix it with sed in the %prep section: 
%{__sed} -i 's/\r//' src/path/to/cpl-v10.html

rpmlint on eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-13.fc6.src.rpm says:
W: eclipse-phpeclipse strange-permission make-phpeclipse-source-archive.sh 0755

I think we can ignore this.

* final provides and requires are sane:
eclipse-phpeclipse-1.1.8-13.fc6.i386.rpm
  core.jar.so  
  debug.jar.so  
  externaltools.jar.so  
  launch.jar.so  
  phpeclipse.jar.so  
  phphelp.jar.so  
  smartyui.jar.so  
  ui.jar.so  
  webbrowser.jar.so  
  webcore.jar.so  
  xmlcore.jar.so  
  xmlui.jar.so  
  eclipse-phpeclipse = 1.1.8-13.fc6
==
  /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db   
  eclipse-platform >= 1:3.2.1
  httpd  
  java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33
  php  

* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* package is not relocatable.
X does not own the directories it creates.
  %files contains...
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/*
  but I think that should be...
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK
* code, not content.
* documentation is integrated, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app (no .desktop file required).
* not a web app.




-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]