Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma-1.3.1-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: EclEmma is a Java code coverage tool for Eclipse based on the EMMA Java code coverage tool. Features include launching from within the IDE, coverage analysis summaries, and highlighting in Java source code editors.
I get the following when I try to build on F10... /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1r9udd: line 29: /usr/share/eclipse/buildscripts/pdebuild: No such file or directory AG
Alex updated this for me and I apparently never uploaded it. Builds for me with 3.4 and matches new packaging guidelines for file locations: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma-1.3.2-1.fc9.src.rpm There are some rpmlint warnings but I believe they're all waivable.
The review arrived finally. Nothing serious, just few small things: * First you should close bug #444511 * This package is only for F-10+, right? * To simplify the code, you can use %define install_loc %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/eclemma and update everything accordingly. This is a suggestion, not a requirement. * You are now not owning the directory %{install_loc}/eclemma With the above suggestion you can just use %{install_loc} in the files section. * rpmlint says: eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: no-documentation Please add those about.html files (rename them), and at least the license.html and faq.html files to %doc eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar /usr/share/java/emma.jar This can be ignored. eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar /usr/share/java/emma.jar This should be fixed. eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/.options Is this file required? eclipse-eclemma.src: W: strange-permission get-eclemma.sh 0775 Please use 644 for source files. * The file ./com.mountainminds.eclemma.core/emma.jar needs to be removed in the %prep * The license file says: "The user documentation contains example code taken from the Apache Jakarta Commons project, provided under the terms and conditions of the Apache License Version 2.0. " Shall we include ASL 2.0 in the license tag? * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . You are using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at certain points and %{buildroot} on others. You should stay consistent.
(In reply to comment #3) > The review arrived finally. Nothing serious, just few small things: Thanks! > * First you should close bug #444511 Done. > * This package is only for F-10+, right? Yes. I updated the BRs/Rs on eclipse stuff to make it F-10+. > * To simplify the code, you can use > %define install_loc %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/eclemma > and update everything accordingly. This is a suggestion, not a requirement. Thanks, done. > * You are now not owning the directory > %{install_loc}/eclemma > With the above suggestion you can just use > %{install_loc} > in the files section. Yup, done. > * rpmlint says: > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: no-documentation > Please add those about.html files (rename them), and at least the > license.html and faq.html files to %doc Done. > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: dangling-symlink > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar > /usr/share/java/emma.jar > This can be ignored. > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar > /usr/share/java/emma.jar > This should be fixed. I think we'd be better off fixing build-jar-repository. If you want, I'll make it a big long ln -s ../../../java/emma.jar instead, but build-jar-repository seems cleaner. > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/.options > Is this file required? It may be just a build-time requirement but it doesn't harm anything to keep it. > eclipse-eclemma.src: W: strange-permission get-eclemma.sh 0775 > Please use 644 for source files. This is a shell script to fetch the source. Do you still want it changed? > * The file > ./com.mountainminds.eclemma.core/emma.jar > needs to be removed in the %prep Since I was symlinking over it I didn't think it was a big deal but I've added an explicit removal before the ln line now. > * The license file says: > "The user documentation contains example code taken from the Apache Jakarta > Commons project, provided under the terms and conditions of the Apache License > Version 2.0. " > Shall we include ASL 2.0 in the license tag? I don't know. I guess it can't hurt :) I've added it. > * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section > of Packaging Guidelines . > You are using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at certain points and %{buildroot} on others. You > should stay consistent. Fixed. Updated spec and SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma-1.3.2-2.fc10.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: dangling-symlink > > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar > > /usr/share/java/emma.jar > > This can be ignored. > > eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative > > /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar > > /usr/share/java/emma.jar > > This should be fixed. > > I think we'd be better off fixing build-jar-repository. If you want, I'll make > it a big long ln -s ../../../java/emma.jar instead, but build-jar-repository > seems cleaner. > I never saw a usage of build-jar-repository in the %install section before. Well, the guidelines state that the symlink must be relative. I know it's ugly but that's the way it should be. > > > eclipse-eclemma.src: W: strange-permission get-eclemma.sh 0775 > > Please use 644 for source files. > > This is a shell script to fetch the source. Do you still want it changed? > I don't think this is a MUST. But I recommend this in reviews. You can always call the fetch script via sh get-eclemma.sh > > * The license file says: > > "The user documentation contains example code taken from the Apache Jakarta > > Commons project, provided under the terms and conditions of the Apache License > > Version 2.0. " > > Shall we include ASL 2.0 in the license tag? > > I don't know. I guess it can't hurt :) I've added it. > So this is my biggest concern. The ASL 2.0 license clearly states that (clause 4.1): "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License" This package does not include the ASL 2.0 license. I think you should EITHER download it and put it as a source in the SPEC file and then include it in the %doc[1] OR just remove com.mountainminds.eclemma.doc/pages/images/annotations.png and the relevant bits from com.mountainminds.eclemma.doc/pages/annotations.html But in either case, upstream should be notified about this issue. [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/eclipse-eclemma-1.3.2-3.fc10.src.rpm All issues fixed and I included a copy of the ASL 2.0 license text. I'll send an email upstream about it.
Thanks for the update! Review done. -------------------------------------------------------- This package (eclipse-eclemma) has been APPROVED by oget --------------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: eclipse-eclemma Short Description: Java code coverage tool plugin for Eclipse Owners: overholt Branches: InitialCC:
cvs done.
This package has been reviewed and imported.