Spec URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc.spec SRPM URL: TODO Description: Eclipse Marketplace Client
Alex, quick question. mpc requires p2 discovery ui and for some reason, we don't include that in the eclipse-sdk by default (I think this is picked up when installing MPC anyway, need to double check). Should I create another package for the p2 discovery ui?
(In reply to comment #1) > Alex, quick question. > > mpc requires p2 discovery ui and for some reason, we don't include that in the > eclipse-sdk by default (I think this is picked up when installing MPC anyway, > need to double check). Should I create another package for the p2 discovery ui? I have no idea what p2 discovery ui is. Is it shipped with the Classic SDK from Eclipse.org? If yes we should fix eclipse-build to build it properly, if not we need to package it separately.
Chris, you are supposed to upload a srpm when you open Review bugs.
Yap, I'll upload an srpm as soon as I have one. It looks like I'm going to have to package the p2 discovery ui work as a separate package so look for that request soon.
Spec URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc.spec SRPM URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc-1.0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Should be OK to review now once I have a sponsor.
Notes: * It fails to compile. There is a missing BR on eclipse-p2-discovery package. * Either set the Source0 to proper url or provide the script you used to create it. * If you're creating the tarball please make it tar.xz * URL is wrong- gives 404 * W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/eclipse-mpc-1.0.1/license.html Once these are fixed I'll do the full review.
Try these files again, made the fixes... Spec URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc.spec SRPM URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc-1.0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Thanks for the tips Alex.
Once you install eclipse-mpc, you can launch Eclipse and launch the marketplace via Help->Eclipse Marketplace
It still fails to compile because it is missing BR on eclipse-p2-discovery. Also please add changelog entries describing your changes - this helps tracking the review process.
How are you installing it? Because it worked for me :/ I could be doing something wrong.
It's not an install time issue but build time issue. If you don't have eclipse-p2-discovery installed and try to build the srpm it will not complain about eclipse-p2-discovery but pdebuild will fail to resolve discovery bundles.
Dropping FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Sponsored in #634622.
I fixed up the spec file to add a Build-Requires on eclipse-p2-discovery; left the versions in tact for now. Spec URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc.spec SRPM URL: http://aniszczyk.org/misc/eclipse-mpc-1.0.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Still waiting on the fedora-cvs flag to be enabled.
Adding 'fedora-cvs' flag
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-mpc Short Description: Equinox Marketplace Client Owners: caniszczyk Branches: f14 InitialCC: caniszczyk
Removing 'fedora-cvs' flag until Alex does his review.
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: W: invalid-url Source0: eclipse-mpc-fetched-src-R_1_0_1.tar.xz [X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [X] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: [X] 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 is included in %doc. [X] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [X] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Script for creating the tarball is part of the srpm. [X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [X] Package must own all directories that it creates. [X] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X] Permissions on files are set properly. [X] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [X] Package consistently uses macros. [X] Package contains code, or permissable content. [X] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [X] Package uses %global not %define [X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [X] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [X] Latest version is packaged. [X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. This package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-mpc Short Description: Eclipse Marketplace Client Owners: caniszczyk Branches: f14 InitialCC: caniszczyk
Chris you're supposed to set fedora-cvs flag to ? not to +. + means it was already processed.
Ah sigh, we do it a bit differently at Eclipse and it's so ingrained in my mind. Thanks for the catch.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
In rawhide now. Thanks everyone!