Bug 492946

There's a review request for RSE here:

252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223

(In reply to comment #1)
> There's a review request for RSE here:
> 
> 252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223  

I've added myself to the CC list of that review, thanks. How do you magically know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-)

(In reply to comment #2)
> How do you magically
> know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-)

I have a Mylyn query :)

I'll take this one.

Mat, 
What do you think about dropping the gcj_support?
It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it.
And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch packages and etc.
Also there are 65 errors in the debuginfo which I don't think we should care for but they will be gone also if we remove gcj_support.
Sample: eclipse-dltk-debuginfo.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/dltk-1.0.0/org.eclipse.dltk.testing/src/org/eclipse/dltk/internal/testing/util/Resources.java

(In reply to comment #5)
> Mat,
> What do you think about dropping the gcj_support?
> It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it.
> And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch
> packages and etc.

I don't have a problem with dropping GCJ support. (Though I don't think it made the spec too much more complicated ;-) ) In these days of stronger, better, faster JDKs, are AOT bits desired in any Java package? If not, we probably ought to change the guidelines. [1]

However, try this one on for size:

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec
SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.2.M5.fc10.src.rpm

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines

When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings.
%doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. 
%doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become
%doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html
I think that is the  last issue I see. 
Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of next shelled :).

(In reply to comment #7)
> When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings.
> %doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. 
> %doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become
> %doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html
> I think that is the  last issue I see. 

Aha, thanks for the tip.

> Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of
> next shelled :).  

Cool, a version of shelled based around the DLTK is a great idea.

Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.3.M5.fc10.src.rpm

Formal review:
# OK: rpmlint gives no warnings/errors
# OK: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
# OK: The spec file match the base package %{name}
# OK: EPL
# OK: Every subpackage has it's own license shipping with it and included in %doc.
# OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
# OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
# OK: Fetch script shipped in the srpm.
# OK: Builds fine.
# OK: All BuildRequires and Requires are fine
# OK: Owns all folders.
# OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
# OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
# OK: Each package must have a %clean section
# OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
# OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
# OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. 
# OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

Package is good to go.

Mat, just FYI,
If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from pdebuild script when needed in F-11.

(In reply to comment #9)
> Package is good to go.
> 
> Mat, just FYI,
> If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a
> "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from
> pdebuild script when needed in F-11.  

Cool, I didn't know this. (Worth mentioning in the PDE build notes in the Eclipse plugin guidelines?) However, I'm going to request an F-10 branch since that's where my machines are at right now.

Thanks for the speedy review.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: eclipse-dltk
Short Description: Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin
Owners: mbooth
Branches: F-10

cvs done.

Built for all branches, closing.