[Bug 222350] Review Request: eclipse-cdt - C/C++ Development plugins for Eclipse

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: eclipse-cdt - C/C++ Development plugins for Eclipse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222350





------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com  2007-01-15 17:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> And now some comments about the specfile:
> 
> . don't use pkg_summary.  just put the summary in Summary:

Done.

> . I don't think we need eclipse_name.  just replace that with eclipse in its 3
uses.

Done.

> . get rid of the section macro

Done.

> . I hate that there's an epoch but there's nothing we can do about that now
> . arch-specific plugins such as org.eclipse.cdt.core.linux should be moved to
> %{_libdir}/eclipse

Done.

> . does the CDT still use ctags?

There is a comment it has been removed so ctags requirement removed.

> . do any of the jars contain arch-specific bits (.sos, etc.) that may make it
> multilib-incompatible?

Not sure what you mean other than the arch plug-ins.

> . eclipse_lib_base isn't currently used but it will be when you move the
> arch-specific plugins there

Yes, it used now.

> . I think the instructions for generating the tarball no longer hold. 
> Specifically, I think it should now be:
> 
> eclipse -Duser.home=../../home -application <everything else>

Yes.  Comments added and checked for all tarballs used.

> . is the autotools stuff all licensed properly?  ie. it's all EPL and it all has
> the correct copyright notices in the files?

It does now.  Comments added and licenses added.  Source tarball updated.

> . could we add comments for all of the patches?  It would greatly help figuring
> out why we're patching and what each patch is doing.

Done.

> . is CPPUnit support EPL?

No.  It is CPL.

> . should we require gcc?  what about gcc-c++?  Perhaps gdb and/or make already
> require those ...

Yes, I believe we should.  We use parts of gcc.

> . can we look at adding all of the arches?  or at least can we add a comment
> specifying why we're only building on the 4 we are?

I have added a comment.

> . the sdk's %description is weak.  look at the sdk %descriptions in eclipse.spec

Done.

> . we shouldn't have links between /usr/share/eclipse and /usr/lib/eclipse for
> the .sos.  Ben, what do you think about this one?

Nothing done on this.  Let me know what is needed.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.