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-pydev - an Eclipse plugin for working with Python. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234031 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-27 16:56 EST ------- Lines beginning with an X need to be fixed. They're all minor - thanks! :) MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - I really wish they packed the license text in their VCS. Can you please ask them to do so? I won't hold up the review on it but it would be great if it was more prominent than just in their "new in 0.9.8.4" section of their website. * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - I can't duplicate the md5sum of the tarball, but the contents match except for some timestamps of the generation time - can we get some comments for the patches? they could also be re-numbered if you feel like it :) - should we file the references to 0.9.7.1 issue upstream? * summary and description fine X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) ? %{?dist} isn't used ... should it be? X license text included in package and marked with %doc - upstream doesn't include license text outside of feature.xml and I don't want to mark that as %doc; we're okay here * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on SRPM (see earlier bug comments) * changelog format fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - there is an extraneous '#' in the comment about how to generate the tarball - the instructions for generating the tarball should have an updated VCS tag (I know it says "substitute the correct version number" but get rid of that comment and fix the actual tag) - speaking of the tarball-generating instructions, can we clean them up a bit? Let's drop the "following the Eclipse Releng process" bit - remove pkg_summary and eclipse_name and just type them in directly * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper - why don't we just have BR: eclipse-pde? X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - can we split the commons-codec symlinking line? - also, the lines with symlinking in %install are too long * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no locale data * no cp usage so no need to worry about -p * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine ? %defattrs present - should there be another '-' after the 'root,root'? * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -q --requires -p eclipse-pydev-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db commons-codec >= 1.3 eclipse-platform java-1.5.0-gcj >= 1.5.0 java-1.5.0-gcj >= 1.5.0 junit >= 3.8.1 jython >= 2.2 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --provides -p eclipse-pydev-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm ast.jar.so core.jar.so parser.jar.so pydev-debug.jar.so pydev-jython.jar.so pydev.jar.so refactoring.jar.so eclipse-pydev = 1:1.3.1-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - see previous bug comments SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - I haven't tried, but I don't think it'll be a problem -- 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