Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/eclipse-rpm-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: The Eclipse Specfile Editor package contains Eclipse plugins that are useful for RPM specfiles maintenance within the Eclipse IDE. The specfile editor need some code of rpmlint 0.81, I will ask Ville if it's possible to include needed patch at less in rawhide.
I expect that rpmlint 0.81 will be released fairly soon. It'll be a slightly backwards incompatible release with <= 0.80, so I'm not yet sure whether it will be pushed to <= F7, but it'll be in F8+.
The only thing that the specfile editor need is the patch to run rpmlint on .spec file. Is there a way to just include this patch for <= F7?
It is premature to think about that too much right now. I don't plan to do that myself, but in a nutshell, I suppose if the decision is not to ship 0.81+ for <= F7 and someone volunteers to extract that functionality from 0.81 and backport and maintain it as a patch to earlier versions, I'll look into it, but only after 0.81 is out.
Okay thanks for the clarification, once 0.81 is out I would like to backport this functionality as a patch for <= F7 rpmlint package, so that I can maintain a F7 and EPEL branch for this package.
So we can at least review this for rawhide, right?
I'm getting: W: eclipse-rpm-editor invalid-license Eclipse Public License from rpmlint. Perhaps make it EPL?
Oups, I use a old rpmlint (0.81) without the last license checks. I must replace Eclipse Public License by EPL in all my eclipse packages, perhaps we may do that in all the eclipse packages. About review without rpmlint 0.81 in rawhide, I think that we can begin the review because rpmlint is only need at "use" time.
Spec URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/eclipse-rpm-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc7.src.rpm I have just fixed the License tag problem, any other stuff to do?
Okay, everything is perfect except for one small nit in the desription. Thanks! MUST items: OK package is named appropriately OK is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK specfile name matches %{name} OK verify source and patches NEEDS_FIXING skim the summary and description for typos, etc. - "... RPM specfiles maintenance ..." -> "... maintenance of RPM specfiles ..." OK correct buildroot OK if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form OK license text included in package and marked with %doc OK keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - I'm fine with the odd permissions on the fetch script OK changelog should be in one of these formats: [...] OK Vendor tag should not be used OK Distribution tag should not be used OK use License and not Copyright OK Summary tag should not end in a period OK if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK specfile is legible OK package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK BuildRequires are proper OK summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK description expands upon summary OK make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK specfile written in American English OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK use macros appropriately and consistently OK don't use %makeinstall OK install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} OK locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK package should probably not be relocatable OK package contains code OK package should own all directories and files OK there should be no %files duplicates OK file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK %clean should be present OK %doc files should not affect runtime OK verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.rpmlint_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit) org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.ui.editor_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit) eclipse-rpm-editor = 0.1.0-2.fc8 $ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh eclipse-changelog >= 2.5.1 eclipse-platform >= 3.3.1 java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmdevtools rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlint >= 0.81 rtld(GNU_HASH) OK run rpmlint on the binary RPMs (no output) SHOULD items: OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? package should build on i386 (I tried x86_64) ? package should build in mock
Is rpmlint >= 0.81 expected to hit rawhide soon?
rpmlint 0.81 does not even exist upstream yet. My guess is that it's a matter of a week or few until it will be released, and it will be available in Rawhide shortly after that.
I forgot to assign this to myself. What should we do about the rpmlint 0.81 requirement? Lower the required version of rpmlint or block on this package until that gets in? Alphonse? Ville?
I haven't checked how this package works, if it works (even partially) without rpmlint installed, or if it works (even partially) with an older rpmlint. If it actually absolutely requires a version of rpmlint that can be invoked on specfiles, my humble opinion would be to block it until such a rpmlint is available in the target repos. See also comment 3 and 4.
I lower the version of rpmlint and backport the needed patch, Ville can you please take a look on because the original patch http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1349?format=diff&new=1349 don't will apply on CheckSpec.py file. I have also patched the specfile so that you have less stuff todo to include it. http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/patches/rpmlint-0.80-rpmlint-on-specfiles.patch http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/patches/rpmlint.spec-backport-rpmlint-on-specfiles.patch Andrew the package is modify according with the review, FYI the package build on i386 arch and using mock on rawhide. Spec URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/eclipse-rpm-editor.spec SRPM URL: http://alcapcom.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-3.fc7.src.rpm
The plugin will still function without the patched rpmlint, though, right? If so, I'm willing to approve this. Otherwise, we can hold off until Ville gets time to look at the rpmlint situation.
Right, the plugins should work without rpmlint but it that case rpmlint warnings should not be showed in the editor.
Oups, without the patch I expect the same result.
Alright, then let's get this in there and we can work out any kinks with the rpmlint version later (including removing that functionality temporarily if necessary). Approved Thanks, Alphonse. Don't forget to do the fedora-cvs ? and template thing.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-rpm-editor Short Description: RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse Owners: alcapcom,overholt Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: overholt Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Should we close this Review Request since eclipse-rpm-editor already in Fedora?
Seems to be yes, naturally if the rules is to close reviews when the package is in.
It is. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess