Bug 454959
| Summary: | Review Request: eclipse-cusp - Eclipse Common Lisp Development Tools (Cusp) plugin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, overholt |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-04-06 16:56:53 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: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Anthony Green
2008-07-11 02:01:49 UTC
Hi Anthony. Here are some initial comments:
- remove eclipse_lib_base and eclipse_arch
- you've got two different Requires: eclipse-platform lines
- what's with the "upstream CDT ..." comment?
- why is there something going to %{eclipse_base}/plugins/META-INF? That
shouldn't be.
- what's with the wacky namespace (jasko.tim)? Is jasko a top-level domain?
- is this an arch-specific plugin?
You followed the Eclipse plugin packaging guidelines, right?
(In reply to comment #1) > Hi Anthony. Here are some initial comments: > > - remove eclipse_lib_base and eclipse_arch > - you've got two different Requires: eclipse-platform lines Ok. > - what's with the "upstream CDT ..." comment? There's a lot of junk like that left over from the eclipse-photron spec file from which this was derived. I'm going to start trimming stuff out. > - why is there something going to %{eclipse_base}/plugins/META-INF? That > shouldn't be. I'm not putting anything in there, but I created the directory by mistake. I only needed the plugins directory. > - what's with the wacky namespace (jasko.tim)? Is jasko a top-level domain? I don't know. It's what upstream uses. > - is this an arch-specific plugin? It depends on sbcl, which is currently not built for ppc due to a bug. > You followed the Eclipse plugin packaging guidelines, right? I didn't know they existed! I'll look for them. Thanks Updated... Spec URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp.spec SRPM URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp-0.9.207-2.fc9.src.rpm And another one, with the correct URL from comment #0 this time... Spec URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp.spec SRPM URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp-0.9.207-3.fc9.src.rpm Anthony: for some reason the .spec is showing up with now linebreaks when I look at it in my browser. (In reply to comment #5) > Anthony: for some reason the .spec is showing up with now linebreaks when I > look at it in my browser. I don't know how to fix this. I think it must have something to do with how my hosting provider has their web server configured. Sorry. Can we have an explicit set of shell commands to create the tarball? svn export may be better than svn co, too. Can you put some comments in for the patches? The ant line is super-long; can you put in some \s and make them all < 80 characters? There are some rpmlint warnings that need to be cleaned up. I'll review this, but can you review sat4j (#453781 ; needed for Eclipse 3.4) or eclipse-eclemma (#444512), please? :) Any updates here? It's been several months now. Also, the guidelines for eclipse plugins have been updated; I do not know if that has any bearing on this package. This package doesn't currently build with Eclipse 3.4 in F10. I'll try to fix. I've put an updated specfile that builds for me here: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-cusp.spec There may be issues, but it's updated to put stuff in the right places :) Was someone going to post a buildable package? (In reply to comment #11) > Was someone going to post a buildable package? Not me. OK, it's been 4.5 months since the last comment from the submitter and we don't have a buildable package. I will close this soon if nothing happens. No response; closing. |