[Bug 712203] Review Request: eclipse-mercurial - Mercurial plugin for Eclipse

Fri Jun 10 15:31:04 UTC 2011

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=712203

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt <overholt at redhat.com> 2011-06-10 11:31:02 EDT ---
Thanks, this submission looks pretty good!  Below is the review.  The items
with an [!] need attention.  Also see a few notes at the bottom.

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
rpmlint gives a few warnings which can be fixed by adding -q to %setup.  The
other two are okay to ignore since you say how to reproduce the source in the
.spec.

$ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-1.fc15.src.rpm 
eclipse-mercurial.src:33: W: setup-not-quiet
eclipse-mercurial.src:34: W: setup-not-quiet
eclipse-mercurial.src: W: invalid-url Source1:
com.vectrace.mercurialeclipse-feature.tar.bz2
eclipse-mercurial.src: W: invalid-url Source0: eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

rpmlint also gives an error on the resulting binary package.  This should be
fixed in your source .tar.bz2 for the feature.

$ rpmlint
/home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/eclipse-mercurial-1.8.1-1.fc15.noarch.rpm
eclipse-mercurial.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/mercurial/eclipse/features/com.vectrace.mercurialeclipse_0.1.1
0775L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot definition is not present
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:  EPL
[x]  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 is included in %doc.
[x]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package:  59de59ca556b2bb93dfc11df62b088d9
MD5SUM upstream package (what I generated):  1370eba31ae047b7657c70b6ee04b905
- these don't match but a recursive diff on the content doesn't show any
differences so I'm okay with this
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[!]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[-]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[-]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x]  Package uses %global not %define
[x]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=== Final Notes ===
1.  Don't forget to bump the Release in your .spec with each change you make
(and add a %changelog comment each time).  Also, please post URLs to the new
.spec and .src.rpm each time.
2.  Lines are <= 80 character except for the unzip line in %install; please fix
3. Please make the qualifier match the upstream one:  v201104191217.  Look into
a few other Eclipse plugin .spec files to see how this is done
(-DforceContextQualifier=).
4. I see a feature in the upstream p2 repository: 
mercurialeclipse.feature.group=1.8.1.v201104191217.  Can you ask them if they'd
like to distribute such a feature?
5. As for the feature you've created, it's fine but I'd like to see a comment
in the .spec about how you generated it, why it's  necessary, etc.  Just for
future maintainability.

-- 
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.