Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054
Summary: Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: high Priority: high Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rgrunber@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, jjohnstn@redhat.com, akurtako@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 652183 Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Additional plugins to be used by tycho. Currently this package includes :
tycho-source-feature-plugin : source feature generation for an OSGi feature bundle tycho-version-bump-plugin : update product/target files to use latest versions of IUs available. tycho-custom-bundle-plugin : OSGi bundle generation with content defined entirely by pom.xml configuration tycho-eclipse-run-plugin : run an eclipse application from maven tycho-p2-extras-plugin : additional functionality dealing with p2 repositories (copy bundles in/out, etc.)
SPEC : http://rgrunber.fedorapeople.org/tycho-extras/tycho-extras.spec SRPM : http://rgrunber.fedorapeople.org/tycho-extras/tycho-extras-0.14.0-1.fc18.src...
Scratch Build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3995809
Note : Due to some dependencies that cannot be currently satisfied in Fedora, this package builds without running tests. (See .spec for more details)
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=813054
Jeff Johnston jjohnstn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn@redhat.com
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=813054
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Johnston jjohnstn@redhat.com 2012-04-16 15:42:10 EDT --- Issues marked with ****, confirmed items marked with X
bash $ rpmlint --info tycho-extras.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bash $ rpmlint tycho-extras-0.14.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm tycho-extras.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A small set of plugins that work with Tycho to provide additional functionality when building projects of an OSGi nature. tycho-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
*** please shorten description
bash $ rpmlint --info tycho-extras-javadoc-0.14.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm tycho-extras-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
tycho-extras-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/javadoc.sh This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the executable bits or move the file elsewhere.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
**** please address this error
X MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] X MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . X MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . X MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . X MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] X MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] X MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] X MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] X MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. X MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] X MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] X MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. X MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] X MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] X MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] X MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] X MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] X MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] X MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] X MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] X MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] X MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] X MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] X MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19] X MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] X MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] X MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[19] X MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] X MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] X MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
X SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [25]
- upstream does not have a license file in its sources
SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] X SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] X SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] X SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- tested by building eclipse-cdt package
X SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] X SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] X SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] X SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] X SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
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=813054
--- Comment #2 from Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com 2012-04-16 16:45:24 EDT --- I've updated the spec and srpm at the same location.
description-line-too-long : I've wrapped the description to 80 chars per line. script-without-shebang : I've removed /usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/{javadoc.sh,options,packages}. These are part of the build for javadoc generation and should not be packaged.
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=813054
Jeff Johnston jjohnstn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Johnston jjohnstn@redhat.com 2012-04-16 17:25:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
I've updated the spec and srpm at the same location.
description-line-too-long : I've wrapped the description to 80 chars per line. script-without-shebang : I've removed /usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/{javadoc.sh,options,packages}. These are part of the build for javadoc generation and should not be packaged.
Thanks. Approved. Please build for f17 as well so eclipse-cdt can build using tycho.
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=813054
Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com 2012-04-16 21:35:34 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tycho-extras Short Description: Additional plugins to be used with Tycho. Owners: rgrunber Branches: f17 InitialCC:
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=813054
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-16 21:50:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=813054
Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-04-17 20:46:22
--- Comment #6 from Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com 2012-04-17 20:46:22 EDT --- tycho-extras has built successfully on rawhide and f17. Closing as NEXTRELEASE.
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=813054
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla