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-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244192 ------- Additional Comments From rob.myers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-13 14:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #9) > > the patch seems to reflect your packaging preferences rather than Fedora > > packaging requirements. > > for example, the patch changes a line that is > > cut'n'pasted directly from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava #6. > No, take a look for example on eclipse-changelog and eclipse-mylyn, the features > directories are tagged with %dir macro and the second defattr that you add for > the .so files was not necessary - I just follow the way of doing of other packager. your example packages are no better (or worse) than my example from the wiki. these are not Fedora packaging requirements. > > we should probably work with Ben Konrath and Andrew Overholt to come up with an > > EclipseAddons packaging guide- that way we can capture the best practices and > > ensure some level of consistency between the eclipse plugin packages. > IMHO without guideline to packaging eclipse bundle the best way is to stay > consistent with the other packages already in. IMO, if there is a best way to package eclipse plugin packages, it needs to be captured in a document, and submitted to the packaging committee for consideration. > Perhaps, in a near future we would generate the whole specfile from the > feature.xml using the rpmstubby plugin. that will be nice. :) > > AFAICT, this requirement is already met. rpm shows that this directory is > > already owned by the rpm: > > # rpm -qf /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_1.8.2 > > eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-1.el5 > > am i missing something? > I can be wrong but in all the eclipse packages the features use the %dir tag to > say that the directory is owned by the package. Maybe rpm do that automatically too? > > > > - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > > > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > > > %defattr(...) line. > > > > > > NOK. The last parameter of the defattr directive set permissions on directories, > > > something like %defattr(-,root,root,-) seems better. > > > See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html for > > > more information about defattr. > > > > i believe the package currently meets this requirement, because it already > > includes a %defattr line. however, i will include your suggestion because it > > does seem more explicit. thank you for bringing defattr's fourth argument to > my attention- i didn't know it existed. :) > :), Me too, before someone ask me to add this arg. > > > would you be interested in co-maintaining this package? > Why not ;-) cool. > (In reply to comment #10) > Please, can you attach the feature.xml, so that I can make a try here. i didn't see the point of making a feature.xml, when the upstream source already comes with a plugin.xml and things seem to work. is there some advantage to a feature that would justify the additional work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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