On 10/8/2019 1:53 PM, Sverre Moe wrote:
tir. 8. okt. 2019 kl. 19:19 skrev Alexey Semenyuk <alexey.semen...@oracle.com <mailto:alexey.semen...@oracle.com>>:



    On 10/8/2019 12:43 PM, Sverre Moe wrote:
    > Some comments about the jpackage+1-49 update.
    >
    > 1) It has become a lot more verbose since jpackage+1-35. Makes
    using the
    > verbose argument difficult to actually see relevant output, like
    the actual
    > rpmbuild/dpkg command output.

    > It is running a lot of ldd commands, is that necessary? They are
    extremely
    > verbose.
    ldd is used in building a list of prerequisite packages. ldd is
    applied
    to every shared library and binary in app's image, that is why it is
    invoked so many times.

Is this new in jpackage+1-49? It was not part of the verbose output using jpackage+1-35.
Correct. jpackage tries to build list of packages needed by application (mostly by Java runtime) since 1-49.

    > Perhaps jpackage needs different verbosity levels if anyone is
    actually
    > interested in all these ldd outputs.
    >
    > The dpkg command fails a lot with IOException.
    > dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6
    > java.io.IOException: command [dpkg, -s, /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6]
    exited with
    > 1 code
    The command tries to locate a package providing
    /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6
    needed by one of binaries in app image and fails. Does
    /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 exist?

All the files it tries to locate does exist, but it still fails with an Exception.

Running [dpkg, -S, /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1]
dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1
java.io.IOException: Command [dpkg, -S, /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1] exited with 1 code        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.Executor.executeExpectSuccess(Executor.java:68)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LinuxDebBundler.lambda$initLibProvidersLookup$13(LinuxDebBundler.java:239)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LibProvidersLookup.lambda$execute$1(LibProvidersLookup.java:64)        at java.base/java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline$3$1.accept(ReferencePipeline.java:195)        at java.base/java.util.HashMap$KeySpliterator.forEachRemaining(HashMap.java:1694)        at java.base/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.copyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:484)        at java.base/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.wrapAndCopyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:474)        at java.base/java.util.stream.ReduceOps$ReduceOp.evaluateSequential(ReduceOps.java:913)        at java.base/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.evaluate(AbstractPipeline.java:234)        at java.base/java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline.collect(ReferencePipeline.java:578)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LibProvidersLookup.execute(LibProvidersLookup.java:75)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LinuxPackageBundler.getListOfNeededPackages(LinuxPackageBundler.java:210)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LinuxPackageBundler.createDefaultReplacementData(LinuxPackageBundler.java:236)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.LinuxPackageBundler.execute(LinuxPackageBundler.java:175)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.Arguments.generateBundle(Arguments.java:627)        at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.Arguments.processArguments(Arguments.java:513)
       at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.main.Main.execute(Main.java:98)
       at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.main.Main.main(Main.java:51)
Could the error message from dpkg be because I am not running on a Debian type distribution.
Yes. This is the reason for all failures with `dpkg -S` command.
> dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1
Building an DEB package has not been a problem before on a RedHat type distribution.
Failures of `dpkg -S` command are harmless, application package will just have empty list of prerequisite packages. We should probably not run `ldd` and subsequent `dpkg -S` commands in the environment where `dpkg -S` fails. Filed [1] to track this.


    > 2) Previous resources for RPM are no longer used:
    > The resources for application.desktop and application.png is no
    longer used
    > with building RPM.
    > Have these been removed? Nothing in the changes listed since
    previous build
    > has any mention that this has been removed.
    >
    > With jpackage+1-35
    > Using default package resource java32,png [menu icon] (add
    application.png
    > to the resource-dir to customize)
    > Using default package resource template,desktop [Menu shortcut
    descriptor]
    > (add application.desktop to the resource-dir to customize)
    > Using default package resource template.spec [RPM spec file] (add
    > application.spec to the resource-dir to customize)
    >
    > With jpackage+1-49
    > Using default package resource template.spec [RPM spec file] (add
    > application.spec to the resource-dir to customize)
    We don't add desktop integration in the package by default unless
    there
    is one of `--icon` `--file-associations` options on jpackage
    command line.
    To force adding desktop integration in the package you need to
    specify
    `--linux-shortcut` option. See [1]

    - Alexey

    [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229779

Thanks, adding the --linux-shortcut solves that problem.
However it seems to be a regression there in choosing the desktop resource file.

Using default package resource template.desktop [Menu shortcut descriptor] (add application-application.desktop to the resource-dir to customize)

It should be just "application.desktop", not "application-application.desktop".
XDG recommends .desktop files should have vendor prefix.
jpackage uses package name as a prefix for .desktop files it registers in the system with `xdg-desktop-menu` command. However the prefix should not be used when looking up for a file in resource directory.
So you are right, this is a regression. I filed [2] to track this.

- Alexey

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232024
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232029


/Sverre


Reply via email to