Bug 232710
Summary: | Review Request: eclipse-sdk-nls - Eclipse language packs for eclipse-sdk | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Kyu Lee <klee> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Andrew Overholt <overholt> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | overholt |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | overholt:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-04-01 15:56:33 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 232709 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Kyu Lee
2007-03-16 18:59:41 UTC
Ops, Spec and SRPM URL reversed Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls-0.1.0-2.src.rpm Fixed Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls-0.1.0-3.src.rpm A few notes: . Change the URL to eclipse.org since they're providing the translations . You don't need to BuildRequire eclipse-rcp or eclipse-platform if eclipse-nlspackager Requires eclipse-platform . Add a Requires: eclipse-rcp . Summary: "Eclipse language packs for eclipse-sdk" -> "Eclipse language packs for the Eclipse SDK" . Version should match that of the Eclipse SDK base version for which the translations were done ... 3.2.1 in this case . Description: "This eclipse-sdk-nls package contains multiple language translations for Eclipse SDK." -> "This package contains multiple language translations for the Eclipse SDK. . "Portuguese(and Brazil)" -> "Portuguese (and Brazilian Portuguese)" . "Chinese(Simplified and Traditional)" -> "Chinese (Simplified and Traditional)" . dump eclipse_name and just use "eclipse" in eclipse_base's definition . Development/Languages is incorrect but just ignore that for now Full review text with a few more little things below: MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - the md5sums of NLpack1-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip and NLpack2a-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip don't match my existing downloads from upstream. I'm re-downloading to verify. The other two are fine. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. -> see comments above * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on eclipse-sdk-nls-0.1.0-3.src.rpm gives no output * changelog format fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License and not Copyright used * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReq X specfile is legible - see comments above. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper - see comments above X summary and description are fine - see comments above X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - two of the lines in the nlspackager app call have extra spaces that put them over 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel subpackage necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * %makeinstall not used * no locale data in the traditional sense * cp -p used * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not relocatable * package contains acceptable content X package owns all directories and files - package needs to Require eclipse-rcp * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app ? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this ? run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock . haven't tried but I don't anticipate any problems MUST: X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - the md5sums of NLpack1-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip and NLpack2a-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip don't match my existing downloads from upstream. I'm re-downloading to verify. The other two are fine. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. -> see comments above Done X specfile is legible - see comments above. Done X BuildRequires are proper - see comments above Done X summary and description are fine - see comments above Done X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - two of the lines in the nlspackager app call have extra spaces that put them over 80 characters Done X package owns all directories and files - package needs to Require eclipse-rcp Done ? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this ? run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I have yet to do this ? package should build in mock . haven't tried but I don't anticipate any problems Thanks, just a few more things: . The md5sums are still incorrect for the two zips. You should get them again and verify and exploded SRPM versus the upstream zips. . You need to update the changelog to reflect the new version. My build is almost done so I can verify the provides and requires and rpmlint of the binary RPMs. You need to add a Requires on eclipse-rcp for each of the language RPMs. Also, try running dos2unix over the html files. Otherwise, things seem fine with the build and with the binary RPMs themselves. Remaining: . add Requires on eclipse-rcp for each binary package . add BR: dos2unix and run it over the problematic files . update the changelog . re-pack the SRPM with the updated zips. This is what I get for md5sums: 3124c1065754acdfe81966f54f7da94c NLpack1-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip bf3067667799953bb5f941c4a20a9c07 NLpack2a-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip 8f142912fc05b121c8591a0ea2d4a10f NLpack2-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip 358891610a775f9e68f08b37c9a4dc07 NLpackBidi-eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-gtk.zip Those should match what gets installed into rpmbuild/SOURCES after an rpm -i on the SRPM. fixed. . add Requires on eclipse-rcp for each binary package Done . add BR: dos2unix and run it over the problematic files Done . update the changelog Done . re-pack the SRPM with the updated zips. Done Spec URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceware.org/eclipse/nls/eclipse-sdk-nls-3.2.1-1.src.rpm APPROVED Thanks, Kyu. Don't forget to request the CVS with the flag and the standard text. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-sdk-nls Short Description: Eclipse language packs for eclipse-sdk Owners: klee Branches: devel, FC-6 InitialCC: overholt,bkonrath,jjohnstn (In reply to comment #8) > APPROVED > > Thanks, Kyu. Don't forget to request the CVS with the flag and the standard text. Can you set the fedora-cvs flag for me? My account has some problems. |