[Bug 232725] Review Request: eclipse-mylar - A task-focused UI for Eclipse

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-mylar - A task-focused UI for Eclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232725


overholt at redhat.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-03-19 19:23 EST -------
Updated SRPM and spec:

http://overholt.ca/fedora/eclipse-mylar.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/eclipse-mylar-1.0-1.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #2)
> ? source and patches verified
> 
>   - eclipse projects don't release source tarballs, right?

Not normally, no.  I've spoken with the project leader and he says he'll gladly
do so if I provide some patches for his build scripts.  I'll do that at some
point in the future.

>   - the tarball creation steps worked, but an md5sum on the result didn't match
>     the source tarball.  Maybe the "tarball recipe" could be modified to always
>     produce a tarball with the same md5sum, perhaps by sorting the files list
>     and manipulating timestamps...

I'm not sure if this is possible.  Is is a blocker?

>   - should there be a URL tag pointing to the Mylar project home page?

Oops, fixed.

> X summary and description okay

:)  Chopped.

> X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> 
>   - $ rpmlint eclipse-mylar-1.0-1.src.rpm 
>     E: eclipse-mylar description-line-too-long

Fixed.

>     W: eclipse-mylar non-standard-group Eclipse Plugins

Fixed.

>     W: eclipse-mylar invalid-license EPL

Fixed.

>     W: eclipse-mylar no-url-tag

Fixed.

>     W: eclipse-mylar strange-permission fetch-mylar.sh 0600

Fixed.
> ? specfile is legible
> 
>   - are all those Requires and Provides commented because of the missing
>     dependencies in Rawhide, or some other reason?

They're part of my plan to rework how we do BRs and Rs for Eclipse plugins.  I'd
like to keep them if that's okay.  They'll be uncommented and used in the future.

>   - since you explicitly use the eclipse binary in %build, I'd like to see an
>     explicit BuildRequires on its provider, eclipse-platform (even though it's
>     brought in indirectly by eclipse-pde)

Done.

> * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> 
>   - is your editor set to wrap after column 80 (zero-indexed) instead of after
>     79 (zero-indexed)?

I don't know.

>   - the %build an %install indenting is inconsistent (not a big deal)

You mean the \'s?  I fixed the one that looked weird to me.

> X macros used appropriately and consistently
>   - %{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

What's wrong here?

> ? file permissions okay; %defattrs present
> 
>   - why do you explicitly state the first and last defattrs sets, rather than
>     just using '-'?

Fixed.

> ? %doc files do not affect runtime
> 
>   - the doc files are in the features directory -- are they displayed by a GUI
>     window or otherwise used in a way that would break if they weren't there?

I don't think so.

> ? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
> X package should build on x86_64
> 
> I'm getting this build failure:

Hmm.  That's with the latest rawhide Eclipse package?  If so, can you post
<buildroot>/home/workspace/.metadata/.log?

-- 
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.