Bug 797146

This package built on koji:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3815265

I'll do this one.

Fixed the source URL to get the correct tag from git instead of "master"


Spec URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org//eclipse-color-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mef.fedorapeople.org//eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-2.fc16.src.rpm

Would you please modify the spec to make use of the new /usr/bin/eclipse-pdebuild script instead of _libdir/eclipse/buildscripts...?

Done!

Spec URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org//eclipse-color-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
http://mef.fedorapeople.org//eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-3.fc17.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
eclipse-color-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eclipsecolorthemes -> eclipses
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
OK.

eclipse-color-theme.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
Please fix.

eclipse-color-theme.src: W: invalid-url Source0: eclipse-color-theme-eclipse-color-theme-v0.11.1-0-g598b755.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
OK - github is really bad upstream.

[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.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[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 or must require 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
[x]  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.
[x]  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
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  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, ...)
[-]  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.
[-]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

[-]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.


Issues:
* fix the macro in comment 
* remove rm -fr rpmbuildroot from install section

No major issue 

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:      eclipse-colortheme
Short Description: An Eclipse plugin which permits color theme switching
Owners:            mef
Branches:          f17
InitialCC: java-sig

Review summary package name and SCM package name don't match, please fix.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:      eclipse-color-theme
Short Description: An Eclipse plugin which permits color theme switching
Owners:            mef
Branches:          f17
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-3.fc17

eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

eclipse-color-theme-0.11.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.