Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-07 11:58 EST ------- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ~/Desktop/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc9.src.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:60: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib Fixing this is hard. It involves making jpackage-utils multilib compatible. Work is progressing toward that goal but it is blocked on this rpm bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=340391 Work is also proceeding on fixing that bug, but slowly. java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:299: E: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:314: E: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:321: E: configure-without-libdir-spec None of these configured codebases -- IcedTea, GNOME Java Access Bridge, Mauve -- is installed. There may be no harm in adding --libdir=%{_libdir} to satisfy rpmlint though. java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: java-1.6.0-openjdk-win32.patch java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: java-1.6.0-openjdk-jhat.patch Fix. java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: strange-permission generate-fedora-zip.sh 0775 Fix. $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/zi/Australia 02755 ... Fix and add FIXME comment saying we need to fix this upstream. java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README Fix and add FIXME comment saying we need to fix this upstream. java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:1.6.0.0-.1.b06 1:1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8 Fix. java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext I checked Rawhide: it's safe to remove this line and the explanatory comment: Provides: jdbc-stdext = %{epoch}:%{version} since Fedora packages refer to either the versionless jdbc-stdext provides or the JDBC API version. But can you add the leading 0: to the 3.0 provides? java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/bin/keytool ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] ... rpmlint bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436486 java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/security/cacerts ... These should probably eventually be replaced by symlinks somewhere into /etc, but we'll need to discuss this with OpenJDK upstream developers. Can you add a FIXME comment in the %files section saying so? java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar ... rpmlint bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436487 $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README Fix. java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/include 02755 ... Fix. java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.6.0-openjdk java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0 Fine for now, since devel package requires base package which provides the fully-versioned directory. In the future we may want to eliminate these fully-versioned directories. They're slightly irritating because rpmdiff can't handle them properly, and also because they're simply redundant. java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/bin/jsadebugd ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] ... rpmlint bug, see above. java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/lib/tools.jar rpmlint bug, see above. $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti 02755 ... Fix. java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so libmtrace.so ... These are dlopend, so their SONAMEs are fine. rpmlint should probably recognize that these are not in standard library location and assume they're dlopened. Here's the bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436497 $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/java-1.6.0-openjdk/api/java/util/jar 02755 ... Fix. $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk-src.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This error probably shouldn't apply to subpackages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500 $ rpmlint -i /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-debuginfo-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm Lots of errors. I'll assume that the debuginfo subpackage isn't expected to be rpmlint-clean. MUST - package naming The package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is named according to JPackage naming conventions - spec file name matches base package name - package follows Packaging Guidelines - acceptable license - license field matches actual license - license file marked as %doc in base package - American English - spec file is legible - didn't check md5sum The tarball is a snapshot from the IcedTea Mercurial repository. It is not released so I can't check the md5sum. - package builds on x86 - package should build on all architectures (IcedTea 7 does) - all build requirements listed - no locales - no shared libraries - not relocatable - owns all directories I believe so. To be clear about this though, I'd prefer not to use the -f option to the base and demo files sections, and instead list all files explicitly. This is more verbose but less error prone. This is not a blocker for acceptance of this package though -- we can do this in a subsequent Rawhide update. - check no duplicate files I'm seeing these warnings: *** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked: /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/bin/keytool and /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/bin/keytool Can you add a FIXME comment to look into hard-linking these instead? (symlinking won't work since relative directories are calculated based on these tools' fully-expanded locations.) - correct permissions No. See rpmlint output. - clean section - consistent macro use - package contains code - javadoc subpackage - runtime doesn't need docs - header files in -devel package The java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel subpackage isn't a typical Fedora devel package. Instead "-devel" here means "SDK tools". - no static libraries - no pkgconfig files - no suffixed libraries - devel subpackage requires base - no libtool archives - no desktop files - no dual directory ownership - buildroot removed at start of %install - filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD - license text included - no summary translations - didn't try building in mock - didn't try building on non-x86 architectures - basic functionality works Yes. "Hello World" compiles and runs - sane scriptlets Lots of use of alternatives, but warranted. - subpackages require base package All subpackages except the javadoc subpackage require the base package. - no pkgconfig file - owns its own directories Yes. Requires jpackage-utils for lower-level directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review