the python integrated development application for review. also looking for a sponsor.
Created attachment 123047 [details] pida 0.2.2-0.1 spec file
Created attachment 123049 [details] pida 0.2.2-0.1 src rpm
Created attachment 123051 [details] pida 0.2.2-0.2 src rpm
Created attachment 123052 [details] pida 0.2.2-0.2 spec file
list of known issues: - gazpacho integration not working with since gazpacho 0.6.3 too new (will be fixed with pida 0.3.0 in a few weeks. - usually bicyclerepair would be required to load the python plugins but i left the dependencys out since the plugins (browser/profiler/debugger) dont load anyways. (will be fixed with 0.3.0)
- This >Requires: python-abi = %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]") is not needed anymore -- works automatically in FC4 and later - Don't repeat the name of the package in the beginning of the summary - The license doesn't look like GPL - Description needs a linebreak after 80 chars - Description might be a bit to long - Change Requires: desktop-file-utils to BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils - In the future please add versions in the changelog entrys - why "Release: 0.2" and not "Release: 2"? - saw those warnings when starting pida: which: no pydoc in (/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/rpmbuild/usr/bin:/home/rpmbuild/server/usr/bin) which: no xemacs in (/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/rpmbuild/usr/bin:/home/rpmbuild/server/usr/bin) Are they relevant? - In the future please upload the srpms somewhere to the web and post only post links to it -- don't attach the packages in bugzilla (In reply to comment #5) > list of known issues: > - usually bicyclerepair would be required to load the python plugins but i left > the dependencys out since the plugins (browser/profiler/debugger) dont load > anyways. (will be fixed with 0.3.0) I would add it nevertheless
Created attachment 124368 [details] pida 0.3.1-0.1 spec file version upgrade, lots of fixes.
Created attachment 124369 [details] pida 0.3.1-0.2 spec file only fixes summary as suggested by thl
(In reply to comment #6) > - This > >Requires: python-abi = %(%{__python} -c "import sys ; print sys.version[:3]") > is not needed anymore -- works automatically in FC4 and later alright thats cleaned up now. > - Don't repeat the name of the package in the beginning of the summary cosmetical fix done ;) > - The license doesn't look like GPL its MIT... fixed > - Description needs a linebreak after 80 chars linebreaks done > - Description might be a bit to long gotta recheck that. shouldnt be a big problem to make it shorter > - Change > Requires: desktop-file-utils > to > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils thats correct and fixed now > - In the future please add versions in the changelog also done > - why "Release: 0.2" and not "Release: 2"? this has multible reasons. first i dont want to give the impression that the package is yet really production ready and second of all i wanted to start of with a clean -1 release once its approved. in my eyes pida is very promising software but very young yet so it can definitely use some love and care already. 0.3.1 is a useable release if the embedded vim editor is used. > - saw those warnings when starting pida: > which: no pydoc in > (/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/rpmbuild/usr/bin:/home/rpmbuild/server/usr/bin) > which: no xemacs in > (/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/rpmbuild/usr/bin:/home/rpmbuild/server/usr/bin) > Are they relevant? optional components. pida is a framework. > - In the future please upload the srpms somewhere to the web and post only post > links to it -- don't attach the packages in bugzilla alright but unfortunately thats the reason why i dont have the src rpm up yet. > > (In reply to comment #5) > > list of known issues: > > - usually bicyclerepair would be required to load the python plugins but i left > > the dependencys out since the plugins (browser/profiler/debugger) dont load > > anyways. (will be fixed with 0.3.0) > > I would add it nevertheless seems to be not even required anymore. but i will talk back to upstream. going to clear up the issue until the next src rpm upload. TODO: 1) do something with the stuff in docs/ folder... maybe it would be nice to pdf those html manuals. suggestions? 2) get the vim problem fixed (actually i had problems to get the external vim editor going) 3) build install and split off the in extras/ included gazpacho plugin 4) report all found issues to upstream
ping che -- any progress planed?
It's been a really long time since anything happened with this ticket; what's up?