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-sdk-nls - Eclipse language packs for eclipse-sdk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232710 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx BugsThisDependsOn| |232709 Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-19 17:16 EST ------- A few notes: . Change the URL to eclipse.org since they're providing the translations . You don't need to BuildRequire eclipse-rcp or eclipse-platform if eclipse-nlspackager Requires eclipse-platform . Add a Requires: eclipse-rcp . Summary: "Eclipse language packs for eclipse-sdk" -> "Eclipse language packs for the Eclipse SDK" . Version should match that of the Eclipse SDK base version for which the translations were done ... 3.2.1 in this case . Description: "This eclipse-sdk-nls package contains multiple language translations for Eclipse SDK." -> "This package contains multiple language translations for the Eclipse SDK. . "Portuguese(and Brazil)" -> "Portuguese (and Brazilian Portuguese)" . "Chinese(Simplified and Traditional)" -> "Chinese (Simplified and Traditional)" . dump eclipse_name and just use "eclipse" in eclipse_base's definition . Development/Languages is incorrect but just ignore that for now Full review text with a few more little things below: MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - the md5sums of NLpack1-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip and NLpack2a-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip don't match my existing downloads from upstream. I'm re-downloading to verify. The other two are fine. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. -> see comments above * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on eclipse-sdk-nls-0.1.0-3.src.rpm gives no output * changelog format fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License and not Copyright used * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReq X specfile is legible - see comments above. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper - see comments above X summary and description are fine - see comments above X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - two of the lines in the nlspackager app call have extra spaces that put them over 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel subpackage necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * %makeinstall not used * no locale data in the traditional sense * cp -p used * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not relocatable * package contains acceptable content X package owns all directories and files - package needs to Require eclipse-rcp * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app ? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this ? run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock . haven't tried but I don't anticipate any problems -- 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