Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-oprofile - Eclipse plugin for OProfile integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Summary: Review Request: eclipse-oprofile - Eclipse plugin for OProfile integration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ksebasti@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://ksebasti.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-oprofile.spec SRPM URL: http://ksebasti.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-oprofile-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Eclipse plugins to integrate OProfile's powerful profiling capabilities in the workbench.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |overholt@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com 2009-02-25 17:09:33 EDT --- Thanks for the submission. Here's the review. Lines beginning with X need attention; those beginning with * are okay:
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - please add some line continuations to fix this * package successfully compiles and builds * BuildRequires are proper * macros fine * 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} * md5sum matches upstream - other than timestamp differences, my generated tarball matches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X summary and description good - please add Eclipse somewhere in the Summary. Something like "Eclipse plugin for OProfile". - please remove " (Incubation)" from the summary - remove "powerful" in the description. The description could also mention the CDT. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint eclipse-oprofile-0.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm eclipse-oprofile.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 4) eclipse-oprofile.src: W: strange-permission eclipse-oprofile-fetch-src.sh 0775
Please fix both of these things. Just make the fetch script 644 or something and modify the instructions for generating the tarball to be: "sh ./eclipse-oprofile-fetch-src.sh".
* changelog format okay * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * one native bit has no rpath, static linking, etc. * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no translations so no locale handling * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output
$ rpmlint eclipse-oprofile-* eclipse-oprofile.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/opcontrol eclipse-oprofile.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/opcontrol 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
This is fine 'cause it needs to be there for correct use of pam/consolehelper, right?
* I verified that it installs and that the oprofile feature is available. Could you post a test project to try to verify that the functionallity works? I'm getting the OProfile view but not seeing any results.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #2 from Kent Sebastian ksebasti@redhat.com 2009-02-26 11:09:15 EDT --- Updated spec and srpm uploaded (same url).
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
- please add some line continuations to fix this
for some lines this introduces errors, eg:
%define corepath %{buildroot}%{install_loc}/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.linuxtools.oprofile.core_%{ver_qual}
can not be split. For others (eg: very long paths) it seems to harm readability, but other than that line continuations added where possible.
X summary and description good
- please add Eclipse somewhere in the Summary. Something like "Eclipse
Fixed.
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
Fixed.
This is fine 'cause it needs to be there for correct use of pam/consolehelper, right?
Indeed, they are not config files per-se, since there is no configuration to be done by the user. Once placed there they never need to be touched.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com 2009-02-26 11:39:06 EDT --- Thanks. I've verified that the rpmlint issues are gone and the line length stuff is fixed. My only remaining nit is the description: please include the CDT somehow and drop the "powerful". Something like "... profiling capabilities with the CDT."
Otherwise, we're good to go.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #4 from Kent Sebastian ksebasti@redhat.com 2009-02-26 15:46:11 EDT ---
My only remaining nit is the description: please include the CDT somehow and drop the "powerful". Something like "... profiling capabilities with the CDT."
Fixed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com 2009-02-26 15:50:34 EDT --- Thanks. This package is approved.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com 2009-02-26 15:52:23 EDT --- Kent, please follow the procedure here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
which, as a next step has you follow this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Kent Sebastian ksebasti@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Kent Sebastian ksebasti@redhat.com 2009-02-26 16:41:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-oprofile Short Description: Eclipse plugin for OProfile integration Owners: ksebasti Branches: F-10 InitialCC: overholt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-02-26 19:19:34 EDT --- Kent: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com 2009-02-26 20:18:14 EDT --- Kent: I'll sponsor you. Read the instructions here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
--- Comment #10 from Kent Sebastian ksebasti@redhat.com 2009-02-27 10:21:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Kent: I don't see you in the packager group. Is this your first package?
First package indeed. I applied to the packager group, and overholt has since sponsored :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-02-28 18:44:43 EDT --- Thanks.
cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2009-04-03 05:25:59 EDT --- Builded in repos.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487365
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2009-04-03 05:26:17 EDT --- Builded in repos.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org