[Bug 444512] Review Request: eclipse-eclemma - EMMA plugin for Eclipse
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 3 05:18:18 UTC 2008
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=444512
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> 2008-12-03 00:18:16 EDT ---
The review arrived finally. Nothing serious, just few small things:
* First you should close bug #444511
* This package is only for F-10+, right?
* To simplify the code, you can use
%define install_loc %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/eclemma
and update everything accordingly. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.
* You are now not owning the directory
%{install_loc}/eclemma
With the above suggestion you can just use
%{install_loc}
in the files section.
* rpmlint says:
eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: no-documentation
Please add those about.html files (rename them), and at least the
license.html and faq.html files to %doc
eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar
/usr/share/java/emma.jar
This can be ignored.
eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar
/usr/share/java/emma.jar
This should be fixed.
eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/.options
Is this file required?
eclipse-eclemma.src: W: strange-permission get-eclemma.sh 0775
Please use 644 for source files.
* The file
./com.mountainminds.eclemma.core/emma.jar
needs to be removed in the %prep
* The license file says:
"The user documentation contains example code taken from the Apache Jakarta
Commons project, provided under the terms and conditions of the Apache License
Version 2.0. "
Shall we include ASL 2.0 in the license tag?
* Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines .
You are using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at certain points and %{buildroot} on others. You
should stay consistent.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list