[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #21 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-02-10 09:20:07 EDT --- Built successfully for all requested branches, closing. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||484676 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-05 21:46:10 EDT --- cvs done. If this package was blocked, you may need to file a rel-eng ticket to unblock it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||needinfo?(fed...@matbooth.c ||o.uk) --- Comment #13 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-02-03 10:10:26 EDT --- I'll take this review. Everything looks good to me. I have a few questions: - does this comment mean we have reduced functionality? ... these files aren't needed for source plugins; they are only needed so the example-installer plugins can create full projects in your workspace) - could we match upstream's qualifier instead of that of the build? I worry this will give multilib conflicts since the builds on x86_64 and x86 will happen on different machines without the same hour and minute. If we can't match upstream's qualifier (in the case they're all different), just set it to something sane so all arches end up the same. - why not use separate dropins directories for the sub-packages? This gives a much cleaner %files section Thanks. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-02-03 11:02:35
EDT ---
As for the
FIX rpmlint shows no warnings
The only one is this:
eclipse-emf.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided eclipse-emf-standalone
I think we need a Provide there as well (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes)
OK package named correctly
OK spec file named correctly
OK meets the Packaging Guidelines (except for above)
OK license is correct, approved and in %doc
OK license field in the package spec file matches the actual license
OK shell script for fetching sources is included
OK package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture (I tested x86_64 but it's noarch ...)
OK md5sum of my fetched tarball doesn't match yours but that's just timestamps;
diff -r gives no output
OK owns all directories
OK doesn't contain any duplicate files
OK permissions are correctly set
OK clean section present
OK uses macros consistently
OK package contains code
OK no large documentation files
OK if a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK %install MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK all filenames must be valid UTF-8
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #16 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-02-03 16:27:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #13) I'll take this review. Everything looks good to me. I have a few questions: - does this comment mean we have reduced functionality? ... these files aren't needed for source plugins; they are only needed so the example-installer plugins can create full projects in your workspace) No, nothing is lost. I will change that comment to be clearer. The files are still included such that they are present when you create the sample plugin projects in your workspace. (They are merely omitted from the associated source plugins of the sample plugins in the same way they are omitted from the associated source plugins of all other regular plugins.) If that makes any sense. To see what I mean just try creating some of the EMF sample plugins projects through the new example wizard and making sure the .project/.classpath files get created. Oh my gods, there's a reason I'm not a technical writer. What I mean is, the patch (rightly) excludes those hidden files from the build process that creates source plugins. They are still present however, when the sample plugins are bundled to become the sample workspace projects available from the new-examples wizard within eclipse. I think that's marginally clearer... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-02-03 16:38:47 EDT --- Hi Mat, :) I understand now about removing the . files - I generally like to match the qualifier of upstream as sometimes plugins have hard-coded full major.minor.micro.qualifier numbers of their dependencies. Ignore my silly multilib statement :) - as for the dropins structure, if you think you can keep the %dir and various sub-directories/files straight in the %files sections, feel free to keep it as it is. I just personally find it easier to deal with single lines in each %files section. Since you get one zip from the build, what you have is fine. - I think you're right about the Provides as well. I genuinely wasn't sure. This package is APPROVED. Thanks very much, Mat! This package is incredibly popular and will enable us to get many other packages in. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #18 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-02-03 18:45:18 EDT --- Thanks Andrew. I will change the qualifier, but I don't think I will change the %files section at this time since I know it works right now and is unlikely to have to change before the next coordinated release. I will revisit it then. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-02-03 18:50:35 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: eclipse-emf New Branches: F-10 Updated Summary: Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin Updated Description: The Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) allows developers to build tools and other applications based on a structured data model. From a model specification described in XMI, EMF provides tools and runtime support to produce a set of Java classes for the model, along with a set of adapter classes that enable viewing and command-based editing of the model, and a basic editor. This package was previously dead, so please could you also check that the devel branch is set up correctly. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(fed...@matbooth.c | |o.uk) | --- Comment #15 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-02-03 16:12:31 EDT --- Hi Andrew, thanks for taking the time. (In reply to comment #13) I'll take this review. Everything looks good to me. I have a few questions: - does this comment mean we have reduced functionality? ... these files aren't needed for source plugins; they are only needed so the example-installer plugins can create full projects in your workspace) No, nothing is lost. I will change that comment to be clearer. The files are still included such that they are present when you create the sample plugin projects in your workspace. (They are merely omitted from the associated source plugins of the sample plugins in the same way they are omitted from the associated source plugins of all other regular plugins.) If that makes any sense. To see what I mean just try creating some of the EMF sample plugins projects through the new example wizard and making sure the .project/.classpath files get created. - could we match upstream's qualifier instead of that of the build? I worry this will give multilib conflicts since the builds on x86_64 and x86 will happen on different machines without the same hour and minute. If we can't match upstream's qualifier (in the case they're all different), just set it to something sane so all arches end up the same. I'm not sure I understand the multilib concern; this is a noarch package. It's no bother to change the qualifier though. Does it have any significance above being just the time it was built? - why not use separate dropins directories for the sub-packages? This gives a much cleaner %files section No real reason beyond keeping the directory structure the build process gave me. (The resulting zip expands neatly into a single dropin directory during %install.) I can change it if you'd prefer. (In reply to comment #14) As for the FIX rpmlint shows no warnings The only one is this: eclipse-emf.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided eclipse-emf-standalone I think we need a Provide there as well (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes) Erm, yeah. It was after reading that link that I decided that we *don't* need a Provides there because we no longer provide the files that the obsoleted package provided in a compatible way. From that article: if a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a compatible enough replacement as defined in above, use only the Obsoletes. That way of using EMF is genuinely obsolete and no longer supported upstream (and I don't believe there are any packages in Fedora that depend on it anyway). Is it really necessary to Provides it? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #9 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-11 13:51:52 EDT --- Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-emf.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/eclipse-emf-2.4.1-3.fc10.src.rpm What I did was make the package names the same as what they used to be, with the exception of the standalone package, which I obsoleted because upstream removed support for it in EMF 2.3. (See http://wiki.eclipse.org/EMF/EMF_2.3/Standalone_Zip_Removal) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #10 from Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com 2009-01-11 17:52:32 EDT --- Re: comment #9 (spec URL) Your spec file has: Name: eclipse-emf but then later %package sdo-sdk Should the %packages also have the eclipse- prefix so that they can be easily found with `yum search eclipse`? (Forgive this newb question.) BTW, SDO is deprecated in the current release of EMF 2.5 (under development, due June 2009), so for Fedora 12, you might want to build a package for the Apache Tuscany SDO project as a replacement. http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyJava/SDO_Java_Overview -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #11 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-11 19:10:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Re: comment #9 (spec URL) Your spec file has: Name: eclipse-emf but then later %package sdo-sdk Should the %packages also have the eclipse- prefix so that they can be easily found with `yum search eclipse`? (Forgive this newb question.) They are given the eclipse- prefix by default. :-) (To specify otherwise, you have to use %package with the -n flag.) BTW, SDO is deprecated in the current release of EMF 2.5 (under development, due June 2009), so for Fedora 12, you might want to build a package for the Apache Tuscany SDO project as a replacement. http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/TuscanyJava/SDO_Java_Overview I don't really use SDO (and I'm not aware of anything in Fedora that does). Is that a straight drop-in replacement? I was just planning on Obsoleting it when Andrew packages Eclipse 3.5 and just letting it die. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #12 from Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com 2009-01-11 22:43:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) I don't really use SDO (and I'm not aware of anything in Fedora that does). Is that a straight drop-in replacement? I was just planning on Obsoleting it when Andrew packages Eclipse 3.5 and just letting it die. That's an even better solution. :) I haven't used Tuscany, but I've heard some less than favourable reviews. It's not a direct drop-in replacement; I believe it implements an updated version of the SDO spec. I just figured if you needed something to replace it, this would be the best option. But really, I suppose it depends on the community's interest and request. Let it die, and if no one complains, then I guess no one wants or needs it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #8 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-07 04:35:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) FWIW it's probably safe to remove the gcj AOT bits since the Eclipse platform doesn't contain these bits. Fair enough. AOT doesn't work for this package anyway. (In reply to comment #7) Also (and sorry for the multiple comments), you'll probably want to check out: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/eclipse-emf/F-7/eclipse-emf.spec?revision=1.7view=markup to verify you've properly Obsolete'd and Provide'd. Aha, thanks. I see I have some work to do here. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #2 from Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk 2009-01-06 08:37:26 EDT --- I would appreciate your input. I will also be working on webtools and datatools packages, hopefully very soon. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 08:56:47 EDT --- Hi Mat, If you start working on webtools, would you mind creating a list of all the dependencies and their state in Fedora? A wiki page would be nice. This will allow others interested (like me) to help with a package or two. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #4 from Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com 2009-01-06 12:42:39 EDT --- One quick way to see what depends on what (minimums) is to pick a feature to install and let Eclipse 3.4.1 install it. When it's done, you'll see that feature, its included subfeatures and plugins, and any dependent features/plugins required for it to run. Creating the visual tree of dependencies can be done (for plugins only, anyway) using something like this: http://www.eclipse.org/pde/incubator/dependency-visualization/index.php -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 14:44:20 EDT --- FWIW it's probably safe to remove the gcj AOT bits since the Eclipse platform doesn't contain these bits. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 14:47:15 EDT --- Also (and sorry for the multiple comments), you'll probably want to check out: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/eclipse-emf/F-7/eclipse-emf.spec?revision=1.7view=markup to verify you've properly Obsolete'd and Provide'd. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||overh...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 14:43:43 EDT --- Alex, have you and Mat spoken about rpmstubby? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickboldt+red...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Nick Boldt nickboldt+red...@gmail.com 2008-12-31 18:33:58 EDT --- +1. I might be able to help w/ this. Andrew Overholt's already spoken to me about helping out on this, as I'm an EMF committer and newly minted JBoss employee. Note that getting EMF, XSD, WebTools (and optionally, BIRT, DTP and TPTP) into Fedora would also enable JBoss Tools' deployment via .rpm in Fedora. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://www.eclipse.org/mode ||ling/emf -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 477870] Review Request: eclipse-emf - Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) Eclipse plugin
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=477870 Mat Booth fed...@matbooth.co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||445149 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
