Description of problem: When installing java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel this brings in java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless and java-1.8.0-openjdk. Some of those packages have provides/requires which are version-less. This won't work for a dependency to get resolved to say a provider like java-openjdk-headless. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.171-4.b10.fc28.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. rpm -q --provides java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless | grep SUNWprivate Actual results: lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libattach.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libawt_headless.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libdt_socket.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libfontmanager.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libhprof.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libinstrument.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libj2gss.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libj2pcsc.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libj2pkcs11.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjava.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjava_crw_demo.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjavajpeg.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjdwp.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjli.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjsdt.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjsound.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libjvm.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) liblcms.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libmanagement.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libmlib_image.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libnet.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libnio.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libnpt.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libsaproc.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libsctp.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libsunec.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libunpack.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libverify.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libzip.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) Expected results: Nothing is being provided for private libs. Additional info: If there are users who rely on those provides they better switch to a relevant JDK version than to a version of the file which might break.
rpm -q --provides java-openjdk-headless | grep SUNWprivate | wc -l 31
This should fix it. Yes, the regular expression is wrong. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk/pull-request/8
Same for JDK-10: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/pull-request/14
# fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111349 - %global _privatelibs libmawt[.]so.* libattach[.]so.* libawt[.]so.* libextnet[.]so.* libjsig[.]so.* libawt_headless[.]so.* libdt_socket[.]so.* ... + %global _privatelibs libawt_xawt[.]so|libjawt[.]so|libjsoundalsa[.]so|libsplashscreen[.]so|libjli[.]so ... x - %global _privatelibs libmawt[.]so.* libattach[.]so.* libawt[.]so.* libextnet[.]so.* libjsig[.]so.* libawt_headless[.]so.* libdt_socket[.]so.* ... + %global _privatelibs libjsoundalsa[.]so.*|libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so.*|libjli[.]so.*|libattach[.]so.*|libawt[.]so.*|libextnet[.]so.*|libjsig[.]so.*|libaw.. You removed .* from one, and added in second. Is it intentional?
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #7) > # fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111349 > > > > - %global _privatelibs libmawt[.]so.* libattach[.]so.* libawt[.]so.* > libextnet[.]so.* libjsig[.]so.* libawt_headless[.]so.* libdt_socket[.]so.* > ... > > + %global _privatelibs > libawt_xawt[.]so|libjawt[.]so|libjsoundalsa[.]so|libsplashscreen[. > ]so|libjli[.]so ... > > x > > - %global _privatelibs libmawt[.]so.* libattach[.]so.* libawt[.]so.* > libextnet[.]so.* libjsig[.]so.* libawt_headless[.]so.* libdt_socket[.]so.* > ... > + %global _privatelibs > libjsoundalsa[.]so.*|libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so. > *|libjli[.]so.*|libattach[.]so.*|libawt[.]so.*|libextnet[.]so.*|libjsig[.]so. > *|libaw.. > > You removed .* from one, and added in second. Is it intentional? No, not intentional. JDK 8 is wrong. '.*' needs to be in there. Nice catch!
Should be fixed now.
Thanx. merged.
There remained one unexcluded provide: It have really stupid name: lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) Should it be excluded too?
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #11) > There remained one unexcluded provide: > It have really stupid name: lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) Should it be > excluded too? Yes, it should be excluded. I have to admit a great name: "lib" :)
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #11) > There remained one unexcluded provide: > It have really stupid name: lib.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) Should it be > excluded too? This should fix it: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk/pull-request/10
Reopening since some packages in Fedora depend on certain private libraries provided by OpenJDK: libjawt.so()(64bit) libjava.so()(64bit) libjvm.so()(64bit) libverify.so()(64bit) The provides for libjsig.so needs to be kept since it's mentioned as API for JNI libs which use custom signal handlers: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/vm/signal-chaining.html Packages currently in rawhide requiring some OpenJDK-internal libs are: libjawt.so()(64bit) ------------------- bolzplatz2006-0:1.0.3-38.fc28.x86_64 eclipse-swt-1:4.8.0-3.fc29.x86_64 jogl2-0:2.3.2-7.fc29.x86_64 libcephfs_jni1-1:12.2.4-1.fc29.x86_64 libreoffice-officebean-1:6.0.3.2-10.fc29.x86_64 mp-0:3.1.0-17.20161124git1f3980.fc29.x86_64 vtk-devel-0:7.1.1-11.fc29.x86_64 vtk-mpich-devel-0:7.1.1-11.fc29.x86_64 vtk-openmpi-devel-0:7.1.1-11.fc29.x86_64 libjava.so()(64bit) ------------------- pl-jpl-0:7.6.4-3.fc28.x86_64 scilab-0:6.0.0-6.fc29.x86_64 tonto-0:1.44-10.20150312gitbe1657a.fc28.x86_64 libjvm.so()(64bit) ------------------- collectd-java-0:5.8.0-12.fc29.x86_64 kross-java-0:4.14.3-11.fc28.x86_64 libcephfs_jni1-1:12.2.4-1.fc29.x86_64 libreoffice-ure-1:6.0.3.2-10.fc29.x86_64 mp-0:3.1.0-17.20161124git1f3980.fc29.x86_64 openhft-affinity-0:3.0.6-10.fc29.x86_64 pl-jpl-0:7.6.4-3.fc28.x86_64 portmidi-tools-0:217-22.fc28.x86_64 python3-jep-0:3.7.0-3.fc28.x86_64 scilab-0:6.0.0-6.fc29.x86_64 syslog-ng-java-0:3.16.1-2.fc29.x86_64 tonto-0:1.44-10.20150312gitbe1657a.fc28.x86_64 uwsgi-plugin-jvm-0:2.0.16-2.fc29.x86_64 vrpn-java-0:07.33-12.fc28.x86_64 libverify.so()(64bit) --------------------- pl-jpl-0:7.6.4-3.fc28.x86_64 scilab-0:6.0.0-6.fc29.x86_64
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk/pull-request/13 Fix for JDK 8.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/pull-request/16 Fix for JDK 10.
When is this going to be pushed in Bodhi for F27? This update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4b0791855d wants to drag in java-9-openjdk. I don't see a fix in Bodhi yet even for F28.
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e3483fc1b6
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #17) > When is this going to be pushed in Bodhi for F27? This update: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4b0791855d > wants to drag in java-9-openjdk. I don't see a fix in Bodhi yet even for F28. Sorry about this. I had to wait until the NSS 3.38 update is in testing since openjdk builds against NSS and an update earlier would have resulted in a dependency issue when installing the update. It's now in testing, so I'm filing the updates this minute.
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d90ffdf984
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e3483fc1b6
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d90ffdf984
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.