Bug 454959

Summary: Review Request: eclipse-cusp - Eclipse Common Lisp Development Tools (Cusp) plugin
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Anthony Green <green>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: 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: rawhideCC: 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 12:56:53 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Anthony Green 2008-07-10 22:01:49 EDT
Spec URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp.spec
SRPM URL: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/eclipse-cusp-0.9.207-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: 
The eclipse-cusp package contains the Cusp Eclipse feature and plugins
that are useful for Common Lisp development.


BTW - I just noticed that the URL in this spec file is wrong.  It should point at http://bitfauna.com/projects/cusp/

I'll fix that after I get my first feedback.

Thanks,

AG
Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2008-07-11 08:36:33 EDT
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?
Comment 2 Anthony Green 2008-07-11 08:53:32 EDT
(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
Comment 4 Anthony Green 2008-07-11 09:23:51 EDT
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
Comment 5 Andrew Overholt 2008-07-11 10:31:28 EDT
Anthony:  for some reason the .spec is showing up with now linebreaks when I
look at it in my browser.
Comment 6 Anthony Green 2008-07-11 10:39:56 EDT
(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.
Comment 7 Andrew Overholt 2008-07-11 10:47:58 EDT
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?  :)
Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2008-11-06 10:35:16 EST
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.
Comment 9 Anthony Green 2008-11-10 17:19:03 EST
This package doesn't currently build with Eclipse 3.4 in F10.  I'll try to fix.
Comment 10 Andrew Overholt 2008-11-12 10:00:00 EST
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 :)
Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-24 22:06:54 EDT
Was someone going to post a buildable package?
Comment 12 Andrew Overholt 2009-03-25 02:46:04 EDT
(In reply to comment #11)
> Was someone going to post a buildable package?  

Not me.
Comment 13 Jason Tibbitts 2009-03-25 16:35:20 EDT
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.
Comment 14 Jason Tibbitts 2009-04-06 12:56:53 EDT
No response; closing.