Bug 489323 - Review Request: ecj - Eclipse Compiler for Java
Summary: Review Request: ecj - Eclipse Compiler for Java
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Lillian Angel
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-03-09 14:24 UTC by Deepak Bhole
Modified: 2010-07-08 01:15 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-04-03 09:25:07 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
langel: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Deepak Bhole 2009-03-09 14:24:06 UTC
We are adding a standalone ecj rpm to Fedora. The initial iteration of the srpm and the corresponding spec file are located here:

http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/review/

Comment 1 Lillian Angel 2009-03-09 15:22:02 UTC
Everything is fine. Only one question about file permissions, but otherwise the package is approved.

* 1 Packaging Guidelines
  o 1.1 Naming
	ok
  o 1.2 Version and Release
	ok
  o 1.3 Legal
	ok
  o 1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
	ok
  o 1.5 Spec Legibility
	ok
  o 1.6 Writing a package from scratch
	ok
  o 1.7 Modifying an existing package
	ok
  o 1.8 Architecture Support
	ok
  o 1.9 Filesystem Layout
	ok
  o 1.10 Use rpmlint
	none!
  o 1.11 Changelogs
	ok
  o 1.12 Tags
	ok
  o 1.13 BuildRoot tag
	ok
  o 1.14 %clean
	ok
  o 1.15 Requires
        ok
  o 1.16 BuildRequires
	ok
  o 1.17 Summary and description
	ok
  o 1.18 Encoding
	ok
  o 1.19 Documentation
	about.html - ok
  o 1.20 Compiler flags
	ok
  o 1.21 Debuginfo packages
	ok
  o 1.22 Devel Packages
	n/a
  o 1.23 Requiring Base Package
	ok
  o 1.24 Shared Libraries
	n/a
  o 1.25 Packaging Static Libraries
	n/a
  o 1.26 Duplication of system libraries
	n/a
  o 1.27 Beware of Rpath
	n/a
  o 1.28 Configuration files
	n/a
  o 1.29 Initscripts
	n/a
  o 1.30 Desktop files
	n/a
  o 1.31 Macros
	ok
  o 1.32 Handling Locale Files
	ok
  o 1.33 Timestamps
	ok
  o 1.34 Parallel make
	n/a
  o 1.35 Scriptlets
	n/a
  o 1.36 Conditional dependencies
	n/a
  o 1.37 Build packages with separate user accounts
	n/a
  o 1.38 Relocatable packages
	n/a
  o 1.39 Code Vs Content
	n/a
  XXXX 1.40 File and Directory Ownership
	Is there a reason %defattr(-,root,root) was used instead of %defattr(-,root,root,-)?
  o 1.41 Users and Groups
	n/a
  o 1.42 Web Applications
	n/a
  o 1.43 Conflicts
	ok
  o 1.44 No External Kernel Modules
	n/a
  o 1.45 No Files or Directories under /srv
	n/a
  o 1.46 Bundling of multiple projects
	n/a
  o 1.47 All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
	n/a
  o 1.48 Application Specific Guidelines
        + Java
		all ok
	+ GCJ
		all ok

Comment 2 Deepak Bhole 2009-03-09 16:02:08 UTC
defattr should be -root,root,- since the package owns a directory...

New spec file and srpm uploaded.

Comment 3 Lillian Angel 2009-03-09 16:13:36 UTC
thanks! 

APPROVED.

Comment 4 Deepak Bhole 2009-03-09 17:34:51 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ecj
Short Description: Eclipse Compiler for Java
Owners: dbhole
Branches: devel only
InitialCC: Overholt

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2009-03-10 18:25:34 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 6 Alexander Kurtakov 2009-04-03 09:25:07 UTC
Builded in repos.

Comment 7 James Laska 2010-07-07 11:55:32 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: ecj
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: dbhole, akurtakov, overholt (only watchbugzilla+watchcommits)

Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-08 01:15:24 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.