Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fb-contrib/fb-contrib.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/fb-contrib/fb-contrib-3.8.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This is an extra detector plugin to be used with the static bug finder FindBugs, which finds bugs in Java programs.
Shouldn't this package be named findbugs-contrib? This way it will be named similar with the other findbugs packages and ambiguity will be removed from the name.
Hmmmm... I'm not sure how to handle this. The name of the upstream project is "fb-contrib". The findbugs developers often tell people to go to that project for extra detectors. So those who have seen a reference to it on the findbugs web site will look for the name "fb-contrib" in Fedora. On the other hand, naming it "findbugs-contrib" would list it with the other findbugs packages, so those browsing the package names would be more likely to find it there. I'm really not sure what to do. It would be nice if the upstream name were "findbugs-contrib". I'd also like a pony. :-) How about naming the package findbugs-contrib, but having it Provide: fb-contrib? Would yum find it then if someone did "yum install fb-contrib"?
(In reply to comment #2) > Hmmmm... I'm not sure how to handle this. The name of the upstream project is > "fb-contrib". The findbugs developers often tell people to go to that project > for extra detectors. So those who have seen a reference to it on the findbugs > web site will look for the name "fb-contrib" in Fedora. > > On the other hand, naming it "findbugs-contrib" would list it with the other > findbugs packages, so those browsing the package names would be more likely to > find it there. > > I'm really not sure what to do. It would be nice if the upstream name were > "findbugs-contrib". I'd also like a pony. :-) > > How about naming the package findbugs-contrib, but having it Provide: > fb-contrib? Would yum find it then if someone did "yum install fb-contrib"? Yeah, it will install it. But I would say just name it findbugs-contrib. I don't think that the additional provide is needed, but it's up to you.
Okay, new URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-contrib/findbugs-contrib.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-contrib/findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
I'm taking this one.
What do you think about making a subpackage eclipse-findbugs-contrib built by this srpm? It will just need to require eclipse-findbugs and make a symlink of fb-contrib.jar in the %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/findbugs/plugins/edu.umd.cs.findbugs.plugin.eclipse_*/plugin folder. This will really ease the adoption of the new checks.
Ah, good idea. I'll roll a new SRPM later today to include that. Thanks for the suggestion.
New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-contrib/findbugs-contrib.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-contrib/findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc10.src.rpm Now that I've done this, though, I wonder about that eclipse-findbugs-contrib subpackage. Would it be better to use an RPM trigger to create and destroy the symbolic link? That way, we wouldn't need an entire package just to contain one symbolic link, and we could gain independence from the version number on the eclipse-findbugs package. What do you think? (Possible problem: I'm not sure I can easily determine the directory where the symbolic link should be created in a trigger.)
Maybe eclipse-findbugs can be modified so %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/findbugs/plugins/edu.umd.cs.findbugs.plugin.eclipse_*/plugin becomes a symlink to %{_datadir}/findbugs/plugin. I haven't thought much about it but if this works we will get out-of-the-box new check in eclipse, whenever they are installed in findbugs folder.
That would be nice, but that particular approach won't work. The directory %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/findbugs/plugins/edu.umd.cs.findbugs.plugin.eclipse_*/plugin contains information about the findbugs plugin for Eclipse, while %{_datadir}/findbugs/plugin contains plugins for Findbugs; i.e., they're different animals altogether. It looks to me like eclipse-findbugs would have to be modified to make this work. I'll have to bring this up with upstream and see if they have any ideas. In the meantime, can we proceed with the current package?
Official review: OK: rpmlint gives the following eclipse-findbugs-contrib.noarch: W: no-documentation eclipse-findbugs-contrib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/findbugs/plugins/edu.umd.cs.findbugs.plugin.eclipse_1.3.8.20090315/fb-contrib-3.8.1.jar /usr/share/findbugs/plugin/fb-contrib-3.8.1.jar but it's not a problem because this package creates only symlink for integration in the eclipse-findbugs package OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: 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: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK: 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. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Separate packages for javadoc and samples. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK: 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. OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. This package is APPROVED.
Alexander, thank you very much for the review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: findbugs-contrib Short Description: Extra findbugs detectors Owners: jjames Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc11
findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc10
findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
findbugs-contrib-3.8.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.