[Bug 492946] New: Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492946

Summary: Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages
                    Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.1.M5.fc10.src.rp...
Description:
Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) is a tool for vendors, researchers, and users
who rely on dynamic languages. DLTK is comprised of a set of extensible
frameworks designed to reduce the complexity of building full featured
development environments for dynamic languages such as PHP and Perl.

Packaging Notes:
Ruby and TCL IDEs for Eclipse! Woohoo!

This is the milestone 5 release of version 1.0.0, which is the last stable
version that will work with Eclipse 3.4, AFAIK. (Website says newer versions
require 3.5.)

The libdir-macro-in-noarch-package warnings from rpmlint are benign and can be
ignored I think. (Silly rpmlint, of course the src package is noarch...)

Three sub-packages are not included: DSDP TM Integration (requires RSE, which I
don't believe is in Fedora yet), Python IDE (we have PyDev, but I can package
this if requested), Javascript IDE (will probably get a javascript editor as
part of the WTP work, but as with the Python, I could look at this).

Thanks for your time.

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt   2009-03-31 10:10:53 EDT ---
There's a review request for RSE here:

252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #2 from Mat Booth   2009-03-31 10:25:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> There's a review request for RSE here:
>
> 252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223

I've added myself to the CC list of that review, thanks. How do you magically
know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-)

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt   2009-03-31 10:28:15 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> How do you magically
> know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-)

I have a Mylyn query :)

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov   2009-04-01 13:10:31 EDT ---
I'll take this one.

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov   2009-04-01 13:37:08 EDT ---
Mat, 
What do you think about dropping the gcj_support?
It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it.
And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch
packages and etc.
Also there are 65 errors in the debuginfo which I don't think we should care
for but they will be gone also if we remove gcj_support.
Sample: eclipse-dltk-debuginfo.i386: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/dltk-1.0.0/org.eclipse.dltk.testing/src/org/eclipse/dltk/internal/testing/util/Resources.java

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #6 from Mat Booth   2009-04-02 06:26:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Mat,
> What do you think about dropping the gcj_support?
> It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it.
> And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch
> packages and etc.

I don't have a problem with dropping GCJ support. (Though I don't think it made
the spec too much more complicated ;-) ) In these days of stronger, better,
faster JDKs, are AOT bits desired in any Java package? If not, we probably
ought to change the guidelines. [1]

However, try this one on for size:

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.2.M5.fc10.src.rp...

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov   2009-04-02 08:03:48 EDT ---
When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings.
%doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. 
%doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become
%doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html
I think that is the  last issue I see. 
Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of
next shelled :).

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

--- Comment #8 from Mat Booth   2009-04-02 14:55:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings.
> %doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. 
> %doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become
> %doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html
> I think that is the  last issue I see.

Aha, thanks for the tip.
> Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of
> next shelled :).

Cool, a version of shelled based around the DLTK is a great idea.

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.3.M5.fc10.src.rp...

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov   2009-04-03 04:56:01 EDT ---
Formal review:
# OK: rpmlint gives no warnings/errors
# OK: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
# OK: The spec file match the base package %{name}
# OK: EPL
# OK: Every subpackage has it's own license shipping with it and included in
%doc.
# OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
# OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
# OK: Fetch script shipped in the srpm.
# OK: Builds fine.
# OK: All BuildRequires and Requires are fine
# OK: Owns all folders.
# OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
# OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
# OK: Each package must have a %clean section
# OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
# OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
# OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. 
# OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Package is good to go.

Mat, just FYI,
If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a
"-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from
pdebuild script when needed in F-11.

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Mat Booth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Mat Booth   2009-04-03 05:50:35 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Package is good to go.
>
> Mat, just FYI,
> If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a
> "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from
> pdebuild script when needed in F-11.

Cool, I didn't know this. (Worth mentioning in the PDE build notes in the
Eclipse plugin guidelines?) However, I'm going to request an F-10 branch since
that's where my machines are at right now.

Thanks for the speedy review.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: eclipse-dltk
Short Description: Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin
Owners: mbooth
Branches: F-10

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-04-03 16:39:57 EDT ---
cvs done.

[Bug 492946] Review Request: eclipse-dltk - Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=492946

Mat Booth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

--- Comment #12 from Mat Booth   2009-04-04 06:52:48 EDT ---
Built for all branches, closing.