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 ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-15 17:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > And now some comments about the specfile: > > . don't use pkg_summary. just put the summary in Summary: Done. > . I don't think we need eclipse_name. just replace that with eclipse in its 3 uses. Done. > . get rid of the section macro Done. > . 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 Done. > . does the CDT still use ctags? There is a comment it has been removed so ctags requirement removed. > . do any of the jars contain arch-specific bits (.sos, etc.) that may make it > multilib-incompatible? Not sure what you mean other than the arch plug-ins. > . eclipse_lib_base isn't currently used but it will be when you move the > arch-specific plugins there Yes, it used now. > . 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> Yes. Comments added and checked for all tarballs used. > . is the autotools stuff all licensed properly? ie. it's all EPL and it all has > the correct copyright notices in the files? It does now. Comments added and licenses added. Source tarball updated. > . 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. Done. > . is CPPUnit support EPL? No. It is CPL. > . should we require gcc? what about gcc-c++? Perhaps gdb and/or make already > require those ... Yes, I believe we should. We use parts of gcc. > . 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? I have added a comment. > . the sdk's %description is weak. look at the sdk %descriptions in eclipse.spec Done. > . we shouldn't have links between /usr/share/eclipse and /usr/lib/eclipse for > the .sos. Ben, what do you think about this one? Nothing done on this. Let me know what is needed. -- 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