Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.1.M5.fc10.src.rpm Description: Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) is a tool for vendors, researchers, and users who rely on dynamic languages. DLTK is comprised of a set of extensible frameworks designed to reduce the complexity of building full featured development environments for dynamic languages such as PHP and Perl. Packaging Notes: Ruby and TCL IDEs for Eclipse! Woohoo! This is the milestone 5 release of version 1.0.0, which is the last stable version that will work with Eclipse 3.4, AFAIK. (Website says newer versions require 3.5.) The libdir-macro-in-noarch-package warnings from rpmlint are benign and can be ignored I think. (Silly rpmlint, of course the src package is noarch...) Three sub-packages are not included: DSDP TM Integration (requires RSE, which I don't believe is in Fedora yet), Python IDE (we have PyDev, but I can package this if requested), Javascript IDE (will probably get a javascript editor as part of the WTP work, but as with the Python, I could look at this). Thanks for your time.
There's a review request for RSE here: 252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223
(In reply to comment #1) > There's a review request for RSE here: > > 252223: Review Request: eclipse-rse - Remote System Explorer for eclipse > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252223 I've added myself to the CC list of that review, thanks. How do you magically know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-)
(In reply to comment #2) > How do you magically > know about all Eclipse-related bugs? :-) I have a Mylyn query :)
I'll take this one.
Mat, What do you think about dropping the gcj_support? It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it. And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch packages and etc. Also there are 65 errors in the debuginfo which I don't think we should care for but they will be gone also if we remove gcj_support. Sample: eclipse-dltk-debuginfo.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/dltk-1.0.0/org.eclipse.dltk.testing/src/org/eclipse/dltk/internal/testing/util/Resources.java
(In reply to comment #5) > Mat, > What do you think about dropping the gcj_support? > It is giving us nothing as eclipse itself is compiled without it. > And benefits for us will be a lot simpler spec file, faster compilation, noarch > packages and etc. I don't have a problem with dropping GCJ support. (Though I don't think it made the spec too much more complicated ;-) ) In these days of stronger, better, faster JDKs, are AOT bits desired in any Java package? If not, we probably ought to change the guidelines. [1] However, try this one on for size: Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.2.M5.fc10.src.rpm [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines
When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings. %doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. %doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become %doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html I think that is the last issue I see. Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of next shelled :).
(In reply to comment #7) > When I build this srpm I see a lot of File listed twice warnings. > %doc is supposed to be a path in the source archive, e.g. > %doc %{eclipse_dropin}/dltk-core/eclipse/epl-v10.html should become > %doc org.eclipse.dltk.core-feature/rootfiles/epl-v10.html > I think that is the last issue I see. Aha, thanks for the tip. > Otherwise the package is working great. I'm even using if for development of > next shelled :). Cool, a version of shelled based around the DLTK is a great idea. Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-dltk-1.0.0-0.3.M5.fc10.src.rpm
Formal review: # OK: rpmlint gives no warnings/errors # OK: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . # OK: The spec file match the base package %{name} # OK: EPL # OK: Every subpackage has it's own license shipping with it and included in %doc. # OK: The spec file must be written in American English. # OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. # OK: Fetch script shipped in the srpm. # OK: Builds fine. # OK: All BuildRequires and Requires are fine # OK: Owns all folders. # 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. # OK: Each package must have a %clean section # OK: Each package must consistently use macros. # OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. # OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. # OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Package is good to go. Mat, just FYI, If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from pdebuild script when needed in F-11.
(In reply to comment #9) > Package is good to go. > > Mat, just FYI, > If this package is going to be available only F-11+, you can remove -a > "-DjavacTarget=1.5 -DjavacSource=1.5" parts. This is added automatically from > pdebuild script when needed in F-11. Cool, I didn't know this. (Worth mentioning in the PDE build notes in the Eclipse plugin guidelines?) However, I'm going to request an F-10 branch since that's where my machines are at right now. Thanks for the speedy review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-dltk Short Description: Dynamic Languages Toolkit (DLTK) Eclipse plugin Owners: mbooth Branches: F-10
cvs done.
Built for all branches, closing.