https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076 --- Comment #32 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Second round of review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec has this: # PPC/PPC64 needs -fno-tree-vectorize since -O3 would # otherwise generate wrong code producing segfaults. %ifarch %{power64} ppc EXTRA_CFLAGS="$EXTRA_CFLAGS -fno-tree-vectorize" I believe this is because of an old GCC bug, which is no longer an issue. At least not for Fedora. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146897 We should no longer pass '-fno-tree-vectorize' on PPC64. - In order to match upstream, 'java -version' should output openjdk version "9". I.e. no '-ea' suffix any more. $ java -version openjdk version "9-ea" OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 9-ea+178) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 9-ea+178, mixed mode) See: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/quality-discuss/2017-July/000706.html - Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/server/classes.jsa - Please move config files to /etc/ and link them to /etc in /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/conf/ - Latest available snapshot should be packaged. Latest EA build is: jdk-9+180. See: http://jdk.java.net/9/ I'll not point this out in the next review since this is going to change soon again. I trust you'll update to latest available build once approved. - Some config files are not in conf: It's likely an upstream issue as I see them in lib for an upstream build too. Please report a bug. $ rpm -Vv java-9-openjdk-headless | grep ' c ' | grep lib/security ......... c /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/blacklisted.certs ......... c /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/security/default.policy ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output I see many rpmlint errors related to $ORIGIN and rpath. All of them seem to be internal libs. java-1.8.0-openjdk shows similar issues. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. All so files are internal OpenJDK libraries and are not in the ld path as far as I can tell. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Packager provided scratch build links which showed packages building. Reviewer submitted scratch build for SRPM on x86_64 which built fine. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. It's a combination of various licenses. NOTE: LGPL+ is unknown to rpmlint??! [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.fc26.x86_64/lib/server/classes.jsa [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Jar files in sources [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed. Same spec is used on older rpm versions. OK. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package Note: In addition to -devel subpackage there is a jmods-devel package for creating custom images. [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [?]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in java-9-openjdk [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. There are variants of -javadoc subpackages. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Latest EA build is: jdk-9+180. See: http://jdk.java.net/9/ [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [?]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Script + documentation will follow after dist-git gets created. [?]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
