[Bug 244192] Review Request: eclipse-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin 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-anyedit - AnyEdit plugin for Eclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244192





------- Additional Comments From rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu  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.