https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988 --- Comment #18 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #9) > Here is the first round of review feedback: > > Package Review > ============== > [!] URL in spec should be: > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/aarch32-port/ Oook. > [!] spec file name does not match package name. java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec vs > java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.spec Crap, Thanx. Good catch, > [!] Some patches are not applied (commented out). They should get removed. I will not remove them. Otherwise the syncing work will be unnecessarily harder. (and also those will be immediately added once upstream sync from main forests) > ------ > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch601: > java-1.8.0-openjdk-rh1191652-root.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch602: > java-1.8.0-openjdk-rh1191652-jdk.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch603: > java-1.8.0-openjdk-rh1191652-hotspot-aarch64.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch106: > remove_aarch64_template_for_gcc6.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch107: > make_reservedcodecachesize_changes_aarch64_only.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch403: > rhbz1206656_fix_current_stack_pointer.patch > java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch505: 8143855.patch > ------ > [!] Source0, aarch32-port-jdk8u-tip.tar.xz has a comment about how it's > been generated, which does not seem to work. Please use some form of > reproducible sources. File with hg revisions corresponding to "tip" at > the time of source tarball generation should be fine. yes:( > [!] Source8, systemtap-tapset.tar.gz, has no info as to how to generate it, > nor is it a valid source URL. It is generated and how to do so file is inlcuded. > [!] Some "Provides" are commented out. They should get removed and re-added > once deemed appropriate for the package to provide it. Why so? > [!] Please remove FIXME comment: As spoken above, I would ratehr not :) > ---- > #FIXME > # --with-jvm-variants=core \ > ---- > [!] Licence contains illegal license name LGPL+. It should be LGPLv2+ > See Is LGPLv2+ valid for main jdk? If so, then this fix should go to mian jdk too. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing: > Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List > [!] The build that you've linked in the bug seems to update alternatives > and prefer aarch32 over java-1.8.0-openjdk. This seems unexpected. The > other version > I had installed was java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.65-12.b17.fc24.armv7hl oooOh right :-/ There is logic, which constructs numbers from Bxx and Uxx strings. If htose are tip, then 99 is substituted. that is making the tip/hashes much less usable then an valid upstream tagging :-/ > [!] The java -version string of this aarch32 build seems to suggest it's > actually building > a Zero JVM rather than a aarch32 version with the template interpreter. > See line 1254 of the spec file. > "java -version" was: > --- > $ java -version > openjdk version "1.8.0_tip" > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_tip-tip) > OpenJDK Zero VM (build 25.tip-btip, interpreted mode) Right - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988#c12 But I do not insits on this. It seemed to me a reasonable thing, but if you feel differently, I wil follow > --- > [!] Summary is too long. See rpmlint output. > "OpenJDK Runtime Environment in a preview release of the upstream > OpenJDK AArch32 porting project" is > the offending summary. :( oook. > TYVM for review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review