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 2007-01-18 15:13 EST ------- Packages updated at same URLs. (In reply to comment #12) > Almost there. Just fix the lines beginning with an X: > > MUST: > * rpmlint on eclipse-cdt srpm gives no output > * package is named appropriately > * specfile name matches %{name} > X package meets packaging guidelines. > > BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot > > it should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > Done. > Also, you have %{dist} where that should be %{?dist}. > Done. > X license field matches the actual license. > > because CPPUnit is still CPL, it has to be: > > License: EPL/CPL > Have changed to: Eclipse Public License / CPL rpmlint doesn't like the combination, but individually, each license above is valid to rpmlint. > You need to speak to upstream to get them to re-license the cppunit plugin(s) > > * 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 cpl.html and mark them with > %doc in the files section. Just put them in the cdt core and/or the cdt sdk > feature directories. > Done. > * specfile written in American English > * specfile is legible > * source files match upstream > upstream doesn't provide a source tarball but instructions on how to > generate are provided; I can't reproduce the tarballs exactly using these > intructions (size differences), but a diff of the exploded contents gives > nothing. > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on > the other arches in Fedora Core presently) > > > please file a bug in Red Hat bugzilla to investigate building on all arches > > also, please file a bug with upstream regarding this; we don't care if they > > _provide_ builds on other platforms than they do now, but it should at least > > be buildable on all arches. > > * 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 (N/A) > * 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 > X final provides and requires are sane > > $ rpm -qp --provides eclipse-cdt-3.1.1-7.i386.rpm > cdt_linux.jar.so > com.redhat.eclipse.cdt.autotools_0.0.6.jar.so > cppunit.jar.so > libpty.so > libspawner.so > org.eclipse.cdt.core_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.debug.core_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.debug.mi.core_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.debug.mi.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.debug.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.launch_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.make.core_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.make.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.core_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.gnu.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.refactoring_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > org.eclipse.cdt.ui_3.1.1.200701181121.jar.so > eclipse-cdt = 1:3.1.1-7 > > $ rpm -qp --provides eclipse-cdt-sdk-3.1.1-7.i386.rpm > eclipse-cdt-sdk = 1:3.1.1-7 > > $ rpm -qp --requires eclipse-cdt-3.1.1-7.i386.rpm > /bin/sh > /bin/sh > eclipse-platform > eclipse-platform >= 1:3.2.0 > gdb > java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.64 > java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.64 > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) > libdl.so.2 > libgcc_s.so.1 > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) > libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) > libgcj_bc.so.1 > libm.so.6 > libpthread.so.0 > librt.so.1 > libz.so.1 > make > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > X do we need a Requirement on gcc? > Per offline conversation, I have required gcc-c++, automake, and autoconf. > $ rpm -qp --requires eclipse-cdt-sdk-3.1.1-7.i386.rpm > eclipse-cdt = 1:3.1.1-7 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > > SHOULD: > X package includes license text > see my comments above about including the EPL and CPL texts as html in the > feature directories Ok. > * package builds on i386 > ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here) > * package functions in Eclipse > 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 > Ok. -- 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