[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054 Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-04-17 20:46:22 --- Comment #6 from Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com 2012-04-17 20:46:22 EDT --- tycho-extras has built successfully on rawhide and f17. Closing as NEXTRELEASE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054 Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jjohn...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054
--- Comment #1 from Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 15:42:10 EDT
---
Issues marked with , confirmed items marked with X
bash $ rpmlint --info tycho-extras.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bash $ rpmlint tycho-extras-0.14.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
tycho-extras.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A small set of plugins that
work with Tycho to provide additional functionality when building projects of
an OSGi nature.
tycho-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
*** please shorten description
bash $ rpmlint --info tycho-extras-javadoc-0.14.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
tycho-extras-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs - Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
tycho-extras-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/javadoc.sh
This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is
meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the
executable bits or move the file elsewhere.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
please address this error
XMUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
XMUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
XMUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
XMUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
XMUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
XMUST: 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.[4]
XMUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
XMUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
XMUST: 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.
XMUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
XMUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
XMUST: 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.
XMUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
XMUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
XMUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
XMUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
XMUST: 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. [13]
XMUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
XMUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
XMUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
XMUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
XMUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
XMUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054
--- Comment #2 from Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 16:45:24
EDT ---
I've updated the spec and srpm at the same location.
description-line-too-long : I've wrapped the description to 80 chars per line.
script-without-shebang : I've removed
/usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/{javadoc.sh,options,packages}. These are part
of the build for javadoc generation and should not be packaged.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054
Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Johnston jjohn...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 17:25:53 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
I've updated the spec and srpm at the same location.
description-line-too-long : I've wrapped the description to 80 chars per line.
script-without-shebang : I've removed
/usr/share/javadoc/tycho-extras/{javadoc.sh,options,packages}. These are part
of the build for javadoc generation and should not be packaged.
Thanks. Approved. Please build for f17 as well so eclipse-cdt can build using
tycho.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054 Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Roland Grunberg rgrun...@redhat.com 2012-04-16 21:35:34 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tycho-extras Short Description: Additional plugins to be used with Tycho. Owners: rgrunber Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 813054] Review Request: tycho-extras - Additional plugins for tycho
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813054 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-16 21:50:35 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
