https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076 --- Comment #57 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #56) > Nobody noticed that %changelog has wrong versions: > > %changelog > * Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:1.9.0.0-9.b163 > - now owning dir etcjavasubdir > > * Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:1.9.0.0-8.b163 > - EC no longer built > > * Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:1.9.0.0-7.b163 > - now owning dir etcjavadir > > * Thu Oct 05 2017 Jiri Vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:1.9.0.0-4.b163 > - config files moved to etc > > * Tue Aug 29 2017 Michal Vala <mvala@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1:1.9.0.0-3.b163 > - changed archinstall to i686 > - added ownership of lib/client/ > > while package versions are: > 9.0.0.181-1.fc28 > 9.0.0.181-2.fc28 > ... > 9.0.0.181-9.fc28 > > Where are the %changelog entries for -1, -2, -5 and -6? IIRC those were only bumps of releases to allow testing of new config files. > > You could also have dropped the Epoch: from the package, since it's a > completely new package and kept it only in the virtual Provides:. Actually, > the use of Epoch: in a NEW package must be justified in the review. It > wasn't. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning . I do not see reason to diverge from jdk8. We keep epoch injdk packages since jdk5. I would be afraid to lower it. Maybe my fear is vain, but it would need proof. > > Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 > Seriously? Does Java 9 still require legacy Type1 fonts in 2017? Seriously, yes. Java is depnding on X11 for now. Although work has been initiated, its not sure when we will see X-impl-independent port. > > # Require jpackage-utils for ownership of /usr/lib/jvm/ > Requires: jpackage-utils > jpackage-utils was renamed to javapackages-tools in 2012, why are you still > using the old name? > Have you noted that it is using javapackages-tools in all except one place? Thats obvious overlook. Patch/bugreport or any other "let me know" is welcomed. I fixed it now for jdk8 and 9. > Patches are not accompanied by links to Fedora or upstream bug reports. > > I'd argue that the spec file fails the spec legibility rule. There are many > macros whose purpose isn't obvious. For example: > %global aarch64 aarch64 arm64 armv8 Whats wrong with it? Its all versions of arm64 self identifications I ever encountered in all places I was rebuilding this SRPM. > ... > #images stub > %global jdkimage jdk What do you see against this macro? > > It's also full of typos and unintelligible comments, for example: Please, contribute. Fix welcomed. > # elfutils ony are ok for built without AOT > I have no idea what the above means. s/ony/only > Or this: > # Zero-assembler build requirement. > Comments are supposed to explain something. The one above doesn't. It does, if you know what is Zero. > > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Legibility . > > This package would not have passed review as-is if I was the reviewer. Sorry > to be blunt, but it looks like a bad copy and paste from older openjdk spec > file. Unluckily, you weren't. Be sure that non of the nits, you spotted were left intentionally or with evil purposes. I will fix everything you see invalid. Probably except the linking of usptream patches which is mess to do -- 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
