[Bug 919948] Review Request: java-1.8.0-openjdk - OpenJDK 8 provides a Java runtime, library and development tools

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919948

--- Comment #2 from Jon VanAlten <jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jH985IsxpT&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]