Spec URL: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.0-2.fc7.src.rpm Description: The AnyEdit plugin adds several new actions to the context menu of text-based Eclipse editors.
Simple note - why using so ugly Buildroot path? You should use the following one. Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
ugly or not as i read it this is the preferred buildroot from the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473
The package don't build with IcedTea (derived OpenJDK normally shipped with F8) ... [javac] 119. ERROR in /home/fons/rpmbuild/BUILD/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.0/build/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools/src/de/loskutov/anyedit/util/TextUtil.java (at line 856) [javac] case '?': [javac] ^^^^^^^^ [javac] Duplicate case [javac] ---------- [javac] 119 problems (46 errors, 73 warnings) Like Peter say the correct buildpath used in Fedora is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) If you fix the above build problems and the buildpath, I would be happy to pre-review this package.
(In reply to comment #3) > The package don't build with IcedTea (derived OpenJDK normally shipped with F8) ok, this package was submitted before icedtea. i'll take a look at it. and thanks for letting me know! > Like Peter say the correct buildpath used in Fedora is > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) again, that is not the preferred buildpath. read the packaging guidelines link i posted in comment #2.
(In reply to comment #4) > again, that is not the preferred buildpath. read the packaging guidelines link > i posted in comment #2. Strange I have never see such a buildpath in a package but yes if it's in the guideline that may do the trick.
SPEC URL: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-1.fc8.src.rpm changelog: * Fri Sep 7 2007 Rob Myers <rob.myers.edu> 1.8.2-1 - update to 1.8.2 - update unicode patch for IcedTea compatibility
Created attachment 194451 [details] anyedit specfile patch
Hi Rob, I have just finish the pre-review of this package - In the big part the package seems to be OK, there is just two things that need to be fixed. I have attached a patch that fix these two issue. Personally, I prefer to build eclipse plugin using a feature, in this case the advantage is that the bundle is automatically jarred, another advantage is to be more consistent with our other packages. So is there any technical reason to not use a feature instead of these two ant target? The 'MUST' and 'SHOULD' headers just reflect the sections here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines?action=show&redirect=PackageReviewGuidelines - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 OK, but yes I have only tested on an i386 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Normally that's OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig OK - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. NOK. You should add this line to the files section, take a look on the patch. %dir %{eclipse_base}/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_%{version} - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. NOK. The last parameter of the defattr directive set permissions on directories, something like %defattr(-,root,root,-) seems better. See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html for more information about defattr. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Can you ask upstream about this? - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK, AFAICS there isn't translation for summary available. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Rob, have you try to build this package in mock on rawhide? - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. It's only a should, so... maybe OK ;-) - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. OK - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. OK
(In reply to comment #8) > Hi Rob, > > I have just finish the pre-review of this package - In the big part the package > seems to be OK, there is just two things that need to be fixed. I have attached > a patch that fix these two issue. the patch seems to reflect your packaging preferences rather than Fedora packaging requirements. for example, the patch changes a line that is cut'n'pasted directly from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava #6. we should probably work with Ben Konrath and Andrew Overholt to come up with an EclipseAddons packaging guide- that way we can capture the best practices and ensure some level of consistency between the eclipse plugin packages. > Personally, I prefer to build eclipse plugin using a feature, in this case the > advantage is that the bundle is automatically jarred, another advantage is to be > more consistent with our other packages. So is there any technical reason to not > use a feature instead of these two ant target? i don't recall- i'll take a look. > - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. > > NOK. You should add this line to the files section, take a look on the patch. > %dir %{eclipse_base}/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_%{version} AFAICT, this requirement is already met. rpm shows that this directory is already owned by the rpm: # rpm -qf /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_1.8.2 eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-1.el5 am i missing something? > - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > > NOK. The last parameter of the defattr directive set permissions on directories, > something like %defattr(-,root,root,-) seems better. > See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html for > more information about defattr. i believe the package currently meets this requirement, because it already includes a %defattr line. however, i will include your suggestion because it does seem more explicit. thank you for bringing defattr's fourth argument to my attention- i didn't know it existed. :) would you be interested in co-maintaining this package?
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > So is there any technical reason to not > > use a feature instead of these two ant target? > > i don't recall- i'll take a look. it builds as a plugin, but not as a feature. here is the error when trying to build as a feature: BUILD FAILED /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build/scripts/build.xml:24: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build/scripts/build.xml:64: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build/templates/package-build/customTargets.xml:17: The following error occurred while executing this line: /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.pde.build_3.2.1.r321_v20060823/scripts/genericTargets.xml:80: Unable to find feature: de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools.
(In reply to comment #9) > the patch seems to reflect your packaging preferences rather than Fedora > packaging requirements. > for example, the patch changes a line that is > cut'n'pasted directly from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava #6. No, take a look for example on eclipse-changelog and eclipse-mylyn, the features directories are tagged with %dir macro and the second defattr that you add for the .so files was not necessary - I just follow the way of doing of other packager. > we should probably work with Ben Konrath and Andrew Overholt to come up with an > EclipseAddons packaging guide- that way we can capture the best practices and > ensure some level of consistency between the eclipse plugin packages. IMHO without guideline to packaging eclipse bundle the best way is to stay consistent with the other packages already in. Perhaps, in a near future we would generate the whole specfile from the feature.xml using the rpmstubby plugin. > AFAICT, this requirement is already met. rpm shows that this directory is > already owned by the rpm: > # rpm -qf /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_1.8.2 > eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-1.el5 > am i missing something? I can be wrong but in all the eclipse packages the features use the %dir tag to say that the directory is owned by the package. Maybe rpm do that automatically too? > > - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > > %defattr(...) line. > > > > NOK. The last parameter of the defattr directive set permissions on directories, > > something like %defattr(-,root,root,-) seems better. > > See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html for > > more information about defattr. > > i believe the package currently meets this requirement, because it already > includes a %defattr line. however, i will include your suggestion because it > does seem more explicit. thank you for bringing defattr's fourth argument to my attention- i didn't know it existed. :) :), Me too, before someone ask me to add this arg. > would you be interested in co-maintaining this package? Why not ;-) (In reply to comment #10) Please, can you attach the feature.xml, so that I can make a try here.
FYI, eclipse-quickrex, is no shipped with a feature.xml at this time, you can take a look there to see if you miss something. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/eclipse-quickrex/devel/ Cheers,
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #9) > > the patch seems to reflect your packaging preferences rather than Fedora > > packaging requirements. > > for example, the patch changes a line that is > > cut'n'pasted directly from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NativeJava #6. > No, take a look for example on eclipse-changelog and eclipse-mylyn, the features > directories are tagged with %dir macro and the second defattr that you add for > the .so files was not necessary - I just follow the way of doing of other packager. your example packages are no better (or worse) than my example from the wiki. these are not Fedora packaging requirements. > > we should probably work with Ben Konrath and Andrew Overholt to come up with an > > EclipseAddons packaging guide- that way we can capture the best practices and > > ensure some level of consistency between the eclipse plugin packages. > IMHO without guideline to packaging eclipse bundle the best way is to stay > consistent with the other packages already in. IMO, if there is a best way to package eclipse plugin packages, it needs to be captured in a document, and submitted to the packaging committee for consideration. > Perhaps, in a near future we would generate the whole specfile from the > feature.xml using the rpmstubby plugin. that will be nice. :) > > AFAICT, this requirement is already met. rpm shows that this directory is > > already owned by the rpm: > > # rpm -qf /usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_1.8.2 > > eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-1.el5 > > am i missing something? > I can be wrong but in all the eclipse packages the features use the %dir tag to > say that the directory is owned by the package. Maybe rpm do that automatically too? > > > > - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > > > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > > > %defattr(...) line. > > > > > > NOK. The last parameter of the defattr directive set permissions on directories, > > > something like %defattr(-,root,root,-) seems better. > > > See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/developers-guide/ch-rpm-building.html for > > > more information about defattr. > > > > i believe the package currently meets this requirement, because it already > > includes a %defattr line. however, i will include your suggestion because it > > does seem more explicit. thank you for bringing defattr's fourth argument to > my attention- i didn't know it existed. :) > :), Me too, before someone ask me to add this arg. > > > would you be interested in co-maintaining this package? > Why not ;-) cool. > (In reply to comment #10) > Please, can you attach the feature.xml, so that I can make a try here. i didn't see the point of making a feature.xml, when the upstream source already comes with a plugin.xml and things seem to work. is there some advantage to a feature that would justify the additional work?
(In reply to comment #13) > i didn't see the point of making a feature.xml, when the upstream source already > comes with a plugin.xml and things seem to work. is there some advantage to a > feature that would justify the additional work? The bundle is automatically jarred.
(In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > i didn't see the point of making a feature.xml, when the upstream source already > > comes with a plugin.xml and things seem to work. is there some advantage to a > > feature that would justify the additional work? > > The bundle is automatically jarred. hmm that seems like marginal benefit for me... but as co-maintainer you'll have free reign for all the marginal benefits you like. :-) overholt seems interested/willing to work on eclipse plugin packaging guidelines, so if you have any preferences or best practices to contribute please send them along to us. i'm sure at some point this will lead to a wiki page.
(In reply to comment #15) > hmm that seems like marginal benefit for me... but as co-maintainer you'll have > free reign for all the marginal benefits you like. :-) At the moment is not so marginal as you think - you can't package java classes outside a jar file. As workaround you can disable the build of the debuginfo package (%define debug_package %{nil}) See this bz report for more informations about this issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=273881 > overholt seems interested/willing to work on eclipse plugin packaging > guidelines, so if you have any preferences or best practices to contribute > please send them along to us. i'm sure at some point this will lead to a wiki page. Yeah, that seems to be a good think todo but I'm not sure that I can give valuate help to Andrew on this - just because I use him packages as template :-)
An updated build that should meet http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins is available here: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit.spec http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-4.el5.src.rpm this version builds fine in mock for rawhide and epel5. however, when i submit to my local koji instance i get check-buildroot errors, like so: + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot Binary file /var/tmp/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-4.el5.stl-Gf1632/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/gcj/eclipse-anyedit/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_1.8.2.zip.so.debug matches Found '/var/tmp/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-4.el5.stl-Gf1632' in installed files; aborting error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.10769 (%install) thoughts?
That's because the plugin is not jarred, there is two workaround available in the above draft, just choice one of them ;). FYI, plugin compiled using a feature.xml are automatically jarred.
i thought .zip was close enough, but apparently not. :) installing as .jar does fix the problem. thanks for your patient advice! http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit.spec http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-4.el5.src.rpm
oops that url should be: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2-5.el5.src.rpm
The Eclipse plugin packaging guidelines have now been ratified by the Fedora Packaging Committee and FESCo. Rob, are there any changes to make to this package to match the guidelines?
I don't think there are any changes needed to match the guidelines. Note: This eclipse-anyedit-1.8.2 (for Eclipse 3.2) will be for EPEL5, and use copy-platform in the build. I'll make a new eclipse-anyedit-1.9.3 (for Eclipse 3.3+) for rawhide, and use the newer pdebuild in the build.
The src.rpm in comment #20 fails to build in rawhide; it uses Patch0: but applies it with %patch instead of %patch0, which doesn't work in the current rpm. Fixing that, I guess the build is expected to fail on the call to /bin/sh -x /usr/share/eclipse/buildscripts/copy-platform SDK /usr/share/eclipse Is there a package which builds on rawhide?
No response; closing.
Jason, You are closing the review request only one week after you commented on this bug at the last time, which is too fast. The review guideline says we should - wait for response at least one month - then wait _another_ one week i.e. 5 weeks.
Hmm, you're right; I was confused about who the original submitter was. It would still be nice to get something which actually builds, though; otherwise this will just end up being closed again.
I'll do a new spin for rawhide sometime soon- I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment.
http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-1.fc10/eclipse-anyedit.spec
here is one that actually works properly on rawhide, in addition to building properly on rawhide: http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-2.fc10.src.rpm http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-2.fc10/eclipse-anyedit.spec
I need to update the packaging guidelines for Eclipse plugins to say put things in either %{_libdir}/eclipse/dropins/<simple-one-word-name>/{plugins,features} or %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/<simple-one-word-name>/{plugins,features}. I'll take this review. Rob, care to review Eclemma when I update it to reflect the new guidelines?
(In reply to comment #30) > I need to update the packaging guidelines for Eclipse plugins to say put things > in either %{_libdir}/eclipse/dropins/<simple-one-word-name>/{plugins,features} > or %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/<simple-one-word-name>/{plugins,features}. That would be good. I was confused when I came across the dropins dir, so I just ignored it. :) Another question I had was, should I be able to use pdebuild for a plugin? It seemed to work great for features, but choked hard for me on plugins. > I'll take this review. Rob, care to review Eclemma when I update it to reflect > the new guidelines? Absolutely. Just update #444512 when you're ready.
Is this closer to what the guidelines will require? http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-3.fc10/eclipse-anyedit.spec http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #32) > Is this closer to what the guidelines will require? Yes.
This looks good to me, Rob. I'll do a closer check on Monday but my one suggestion right now is to change the %files line to be: %{eclipse_base}/dropins/anyedit instead of the explicit plugin since that way you own the directories too. Also, note that it's not strictly required to do gcj stuff if you don't want to (I actually disabled it in my test build since I don't have gcj installed). Oh, and I guess you should make the requirement on eclipse-platform be >= 3.4.0 since dropins is new in 3.4 and wasn't in 3.3.
(In reply to comment #34) > instead of the explicit plugin since that way you own the directories too. good idea. > Also, note that it's not strictly required to do gcj stuff if you don't want to > (I actually disabled it in my test build since I don't have gcj installed). good to know, i'll likely remove it then. > Oh, and I guess you should make the requirement on eclipse-platform be >= 3.4.0 > since dropins is new in 3.4 and wasn't in 3.3. thanks for the tip!
I had a nice review all typed up but I accidentally hit Ctrl-W :( Sorry if this is ugly: - I don't think you want to include the LICENSE file - just talk to upstream about putting it directly into their JAR - the Source0 URL seems incorrect. However, if I use the URL provided at the upstream site, the md5sums match - take care of the changes in #35 - move the JAR to %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins and not %{_libdir} - please document the package.xml and assemble.xml files (how you created them, etc.) - did you talk to Andrei about the unicode issue? maybe just document where the bug lies - package builds and functions fine on x86_64 - rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-3.fc9.src.rpm eclipse-anyedit.src:121: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-3.fc9.noarch.rpm eclipse-anyedit.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. ^ This is caused by the location of the JAR. Moving to %{_datadir} will fix it. $ rpm -qlp !$ rpm -qlp ../RPMS/noarch/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1-3.fc9.noarch.rpm /usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/anyedit/plugins/de.loskutov.anyedit.AnyEditTools_2.1.1.200809292108.jar /usr/share/doc/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1 /usr/share/doc/eclipse-anyedit-2.1.1/LICENSE Other than the location of the JAR, things are fine here.
Ping. I would really like to see this packaged. Right now I install by hand but it tends to stop working when eclipse is upgraded. Any status on getting this in Fedora?
The submitter seems to have gone away and this ticket should probably be closed. Perhaps someone else wants to submit it.
(In reply to comment #37) > Any status on getting this in Fedora? I will take a look at it for F11/rawhide.
http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-1.fc11.src.rpm http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-1.fc11/ * Wed Aug 19 2009 Rob Myers <rob.myers.edu> 2.2.0-1 - Updated to 2.2.0 - Drop gcj support - Change jar location to /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/anyedit - Bump eclipse-platform to 3.4.0+
3 minor things: - please put comments above the package and assemble scripts saying that you wrote them - change the %files entry to be /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/anyedit - injecting the license isn't necessary Otherwise, good to go.
Should all be fixed now. http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11.src.rpm http://rmyers.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-anyedit/eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11/ * Wed Aug 19 2009 Rob Myers <rob.myers.edu> 2.2.0-2 - Drop LICENSE file - Minor spec file cleanup
Approved. Thanks.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-anyedit Short Description: AnyEdit plugin for eclipse Owners: rmyers joshkayse Branches: F-11 InitialCC: overholt
CVS done.
eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11
eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update eclipse-anyedit'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8834
eclipse-anyedit-2.2.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.