Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.0-b79.fc17.1.src.rpm Description: The OpenJDK runtime environment Fedora Account System Username: omajid
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5104539
Package Review ============== Template based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] rpmlint output: $ rpmlint java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec:99: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec:553: W: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec:585: W: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec:617: W: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: java-1.8.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-tck.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: java-1.8.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-idlj.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: java-1.8.0-openjdk-java-access-bridge-security.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: java-1.8.0-openjdk-accessible-toolkit.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch101: %{name}-bitmap.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch102: %{name}-size_t.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch103: %{name}-arm-fixes.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch104: %{name}-ppc-zero-jdk.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch105: %{name}-ppc-zero-hotspot.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch106: %{name}-ppc-zero-corba.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch107: %{name}-freetype-check-fix.patch java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11: pulseaudio.tar.gz java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9: desktop-files.tar.gz java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source8: systemtap-tapset.tar.gz java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source7: class-rewriter.tar.gz java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: mauve-2008-10-22.tar.gz java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jdk8-b79.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings What I'm a little worried about is the invalid-url warnings. See also below. The patches are applied, this could be cleaned up some thanks to some upstream build changes (patches applied in build section due to upstream constraints up to 1.7.x can probably now be applied in setup) but this is not a blocker IMO. The library path is a necessary arch-specific workaround. The configure for this package doesn't need libdir specified. [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines[3]. [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [X] 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. [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [!] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this[4]. As noted above, invalid-URL warnings on several sources. Please either provide working URL or comment providing instructions for reproducing upstream tarballs. [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [-] 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. [X] 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. [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [-] 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. [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [-] 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. [X] 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. [X] 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) [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [X] Each package must consistently use macros. [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [X] 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). [X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [X] Development files must be in a -devel package. [X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [X] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. === Other suggestions === [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [X] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Submitter provided link to successful scratch build. [X] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [X] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [-] 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [X] 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. [X] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense Tested on: Rawhide === Issues === 1. Only one blocking issue from the comments above, the source bundles without proper URL or repository or other information. 2. There are file conflicts when trying to install from scratch build: # rpm -ivf java-1.8.0-openjdk-* Preparing packages... file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/hotspot-1.7.0.stp from install of java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/hotspot_jni-1.7.0.stp from install of java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/jstack-1.7.0.stp from install of java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 It might be enough to just install the files with obvious rename. It does look like the files are pointing to the correct (1.8.0) libjvm.so. === Final Notes === 1. Please take other comments as opportunity for improvement, not blockers. I'm also fairly sure that there's a lot of other opportunity for cleanup of stuff that's been inherited by previous openjdk version packages over the years, especially since upstream's move to autotools-based build, but that's a separate concern from "is this OK as new package for Fedora". I trust that maintainer will continue to improve this package. 2. I'm not sure if this is intentional: $ /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.8.0/bin/java -version openjdk version "1.8.0-internal" OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-internal-0) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b20-internal, mixed mode) "internal"? I'm not sure what that means. As a tech preview this is probably not a big deal, but in case it's not on purpose I thought I'd mention it. ================ [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.0-0.1.b79.fc17.src.rpm In case anyone cares, the contents of the dist-git repo will be based on the contents of: https://github.com/omajid/java-1.8.0-openjdk (In reply to comment #2) > What I'm a little worried about is the invalid-url warnings. See also below. Sorry about that. Most of these tarballs are generated. I have added scripts to generate each of the 4 tarballs now used. > The patches are applied, this could be cleaned up some thanks to some > upstream build changes (patches applied in build section due to upstream > constraints up to 1.7.x can probably now be applied in setup) but this is > not a blocker IMO. Fixed. All patches are now applied in the %prep section. > [!] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as > it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL > can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for > how to deal with this[4]. > > As noted above, invalid-URL warnings on several sources. Please either > provide working URL or comment providing instructions for reproducing > upstream tarballs. There are now two scripts (generate_source_tarball.sh and generate_tarballs.sh) which generate all the tarballs. Comments in spec file now refer to the scripts at the right time. > 1. Only one blocking issue from the comments above, the source bundles > without proper URL or repository or other information. Please see the comments above. > 2. There are file conflicts when trying to install from scratch build: > # rpm -ivf java-1.8.0-openjdk-* > Preparing packages... > file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/hotspot-1.7.0.stp from install of > java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file > from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 > file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/hotspot_jni-1.7.0.stp from install > of java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file > from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 > file /usr/share/systemtap/tapset/x86_64/jstack-1.7.0.stp from install of > java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.8.0.0-b79.fc19.1.x86_64 conflicts with file > from package java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.9-2.3.7.0.fc19.x86_64 > > It might be enough to just install the files with obvious rename. It does > look like the files are pointing to the correct (1.8.0) libjvm.so. Yeah, I had to rename the files correctly. > 2. I'm not sure if this is intentional: > > $ /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.8.0/bin/java -version > openjdk version "1.8.0-internal" > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-internal-0) > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b20-internal, mixed mode) > > "internal"? I'm not sure what that means. As a tech preview this is > probably not a big deal, but in case it's not on purpose I thought I'd > mention it. "internal" is what the default build assumes is the version for any OpenJDK build. I can tweak this, but not sure what a good (pre-release) version is. Suggestions?
Updated scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5110538
(In reply to comment #3) > > What I'm a little worried about is the invalid-url warnings. See also below. > > Sorry about that. Most of these tarballs are generated. I have added scripts > to generate each of the 4 tarballs now used. > This is *NOT* a blocker, but at some point please also add the URL used in the scripts to the comments of the spec. Having it only in the script sort of obfuscates things. Feel free to do this in a future update, after the package is added to F19. > > $ /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.8.0/bin/java -version > > openjdk version "1.8.0-internal" > > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-internal-0) > > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b20-internal, mixed mode) > > > > "internal"? I'm not sure what that means. As a tech preview this is > > probably not a big deal, but in case it's not on purpose I thought I'd > > mention it. > > "internal" is what the default build assumes is the version for any OpenJDK > build. I can tweak this, but not sure what a good (pre-release) version is. > Suggestions? Maybe s/internal/preview/ ? This is *NOT* a blocker, the package is fine with or without tweaking this. As for the rest that I snipped, you did more than was necessary to bring this up to snuff for packaging guidelines. Thanks!! And so: ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: java-1.8.0-openjdk Short Description: OpenJDK Runtime Environment Owners: omajid dbhole Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: java-1.8.0-openjdk New Branches: f19 Owners: omajid dbhole This package just missed the F19 branching.