Spec URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common.spec SRPM URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common-3.2.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Contains the features of the Web Tools Platform Eclipse extension that are used outside of web tooling including Facet APIs, Validation, the Snippets View, and an Extensible URI Resolver. Hello all. I just packaged this and would appreciate a review.
After a quick glance at the .spec file it appears there are some missing requires. Are you sure gef, etc. aren't also runtime requirements?
I would do this one.
Not an official review as there are some critical pieces missing yet - nothing is installed :) relly. In your builddir/build/rpmbuild there are zips created for everyone of your rpmbuild calls you should unzip all of them in dropins. Other comments: * Drop rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from install section * Drop the whole clean section * Drop %defattr(-,root,root,-) from files sections Some suggestions: * Fix the fetch script to not put things into directory common but %{name}-%{version} - it's way easier for maintenance and you can drop -c parameter from the setup macro call * You can try building the *.sdk features - it's not mandatory (i.e. I won't block the review on this) but it's really helpful to have them installed especially for packages containing common functionalities because usually these features contain the source bundles and documentation.
New files uploaded: Spec URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common.spec SRPM URL: http://arobinso.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-wtp-common-3.2.4-1.fc15.src.rpm Fixed installation and made suggested edits. Pdebuild cannot install the sdk features, so I cannot package them.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [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 definition is not present [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: EPL [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. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] 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 [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] 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. [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) === Other suggestions === [-] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [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. Really good package. No issues. This pacakge is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-wtp-common Short Description: Eclipse Web Tools Platform common libraries. Owners: arobinso akurtakov Branches: f15 InitialCC: akurtakov
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Andrew please close if you have built it properly in koji and/or use the bodhi feature to close this bug when pushed to f15