Spec URL: http://torweb.toronto.redhat.com/~fitzsim/java-1.6.0-sun.spec SRPM URL: http://torweb.toronto.redhat.com/~fitzsim/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Sun's Java 6 Runtime and Development environments
** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. java-1.6.0-sun.i586: E: useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext Needed. ok. java-1.6.0-sun.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/jexec ... ok. java-1.6.0-sun.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/i386/xawt/libmawt.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/..'] .... ok. java-1.6.0-sun.i586: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm Check this. java-1.6.0-sun.i586: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/rt.jar ... ok. ** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-jdbc-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun-jdbc.i586: W: no-documentation ok. java-1.6.0-sun-jdbc.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. java-1.6.0-sun-jdbc.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/i386/libJdbcOdbc.so ok. java-1.6.0-sun-jdbc.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/i386/libJdbcOdbc.so ['$ORIGIN'] ok. ** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-plugin-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun-plugin.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. java-1.6.0-sun-plugin.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/plugin/i386/ns7-gcc29/libjavaplugin_oji.so .... ok. java-1.6.0-sun-plugin.i586: E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/security/javaws.policy ok. java-1.6.0-sun-plugin.i586: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/sunw_java_plugin.mo ok. java-1.6.0-sun-plugin.i586: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/jre/lib/plugin.jar ... ok. ** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-src-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun-src.i586: W: no-documentation ok. java-1.6.0-sun-src.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. ** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-devel-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun-devel.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. java-1.6.0-sun-devel.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/lib/jexec ... ok. java-1.6.0-sun-devel.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/bin/wsimport ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] ... ok. java-1.6.0-sun-devel.i586: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/lib/tools.jar ok. ** rpmlint java-1.6.0-sun-demo-1.6.0.4-1jpp.1.el5.i586.rpm java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/hprof/src/hprof_trace.c ... ok. java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: invalid-license Sun Binary Code License ok. java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/waiters/lib/libwaiters.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/waiters/lib/libwaiters.so libwaiters.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/waiters/lib/libwaiters.so ['$ORIGIN'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/versionCheck/lib/libversionCheck.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/versionCheck/lib/libversionCheck.so libversionCheck.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/versionCheck/lib/libversionCheck.so ['$ORIGIN'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so libmtrace.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/../../../../lib/i386', '$ORIGIN/../../../../jre/lib/i386'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/minst/lib/libminst.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/minst/lib/libminst.so libminst.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/minst/lib/libminst.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/../../../../lib/i386', '$ORIGIN/../../../../jre/lib/i386'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapViewer/lib/libheapViewer.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapViewer/lib/libheapViewer.so libheapViewer.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapViewer/lib/libheapViewer.so ['$ORIGIN'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapTracker/lib/libheapTracker.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapTracker/lib/libheapTracker.so libheapTracker.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/heapTracker/lib/libheapTracker.so ['$ORIGIN', '$ORIGIN/../../../../lib/i386', '$ORIGIN/../../../../jre/lib/i386'] java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/gctest/lib/libgctest.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/gctest/lib/libgctest.so libgctest.so java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/gctest/lib/libgctest.so ['$ORIGIN'] Delete these files. They can be rebuilt from the demo source code. ------------------------- Packaging Guidelines 1. Naming The name includes the JDK major version, 1.6.0. Including the version in the package name is against the guidelines. But in this case it's OK. This follows the convention used by other RHEL-packaged JDKs. 2. Legal 1. Licensing We have an agreement with Sun that allows us to ship this. 2. Shareware 3. Patents 4. Emulators 5. Binary Firmware 3. No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries The proprietary JDKs are pre-built- that's how we receive them from the vendors. 4. Writing a package from scratch 5. Modifying an existing package 6. Filesystem Layout 1. Libexecdir 7. Use rpmlint 1. Rpmlint Errors See above. 8. Changelogs Should the changelog entries from the java-1.5.0-sun package be included in this spec file? Maybe truncate it to only include those specific to java-1.6.0-sun. 9. Tags 10. BuildRoot tag 1. Prepping BuildRoot For %install Done. 11. Requires 1. PreReq 2. File Dependencies 12. BuildRequires 1. rpmdev-rmdevelrpms 2. Exceptions 13. Summary and description Fine. 14. Encoding 1. Non-ASCII Filenames 15. Documentation 16. Compiler flags 17. Debuginfo packages 18. Exclusion of Static Libraries 1. Packaging Static Libraries 2. Staticly Linking Executables 1. Programs which don't need to notify FESCo 19. Duplication of system libraries 20. Beware of Rpath 1. Removing Rpath 21. Configuration files 22. Init Scripts 23. Desktop files 1. Icon tag in Desktop Files 2. .desktop file creation 3. desktop-file-install usage 24. Macros 1. Using %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS 2. Why the %makeinstall macro should not be used 25. Handling Locale Files 1. Why do we need to use %find_lang? 26. Timestamps 27. Parallel make 28. Scriptlets requirements 29. Running scriptlets only in certain situations 30. Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories 31. Conditional dependencies 32. Build packages with separate user accounts 33. Relocatable packages 34. Code Vs Content 35. File and Directory Ownership 36. Users and Groups 37. Web Applications 38. Conflicts 39. No External Kernel Modules ok. ------------------------- - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ok. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. ok. - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ok. - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. N/A - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. ok. - MUST: 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. ok. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. ok. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). ok. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. built on i586. - MUST: 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. Done. - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. ok. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. None. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: None. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. ok. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. Yes. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Yes. - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. ok. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. ok. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. ok. Demo headers in -demo, devel headers in -devel. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. ok. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. ControlPanel and javaws do this - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Done. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ok. - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ok - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. Not done. - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. works on i586. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. works. - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. ok. - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. ok - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. ok.
(In reply to comment #1) > java-1.6.0-sun-demo.i586: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.4/demo/jvmti/gctest/lib/libgctest.so ['$ORIGIN'] > > Delete these files. They can be rebuilt from the demo source code. I'm going to leave them; since they're under /usr/lib, they can't cause multilib conflicts. Also, rebuilding from the demo source code is not trivial. > 8. Changelogs > > Should the changelog entries from the java-1.5.0-sun package be included in > this spec file? Maybe > truncate it to only include those specific to java-1.6.0-sun. JPackage.org contributors have objected to changelog truncation in the past; I'll leave them intact in the interest of diplomacy. I should note here that we've decided to bump the Epoch of 1.6.0-level JDK packages to 1. Here is the comment I'm adding to the spec file: # java-1.5.0-ibm from jpackage.org set Epoch to 1 for unknown reasons, # and this change was brought into RHEL-4. java-1.5.0-ibm packages # also included the epoch in their virtual provides. This created a # situation where in-the-wild java-1.5.0-ibm packages provided "java = # 1:1.5.0". In RPM terms, "1.6.0 < 1:1.5.0" since 1.6.0 is # interpreted as 0:1.6.0. So the "java >= 1.6.0" requirement would be # satisfied by the 1:1.5.0 packages. Thus we need to set the epoch in # JDK package >= 1.6.0 to 1, and packages referring to JDK virtual # provides >= 1.6.0 must specify the epoch, "java >= 1:1.6.0".
APPROVED