https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <domi...@greysector.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |domi...@greysector.net
--- Comment #56 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <domi...@greysector.net> ---
Nobody noticed that %changelog has wrong versions:
%changelog
* Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jva...@redhat.com> - 1:1.9.0.0-9.b163
- now owning dir etcjavasubdir
* Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jva...@redhat.com> - 1:1.9.0.0-8.b163
- EC no longer built
* Tue Oct 10 2017 Jiri Vanek <jva...@redhat.com> - 1:1.9.0.0-7.b163
- now owning dir etcjavadir
* Thu Oct 05 2017 Jiri Vanek <jva...@redhat.com> - 1:1.9.0.0-4.b163
- config files moved to etc
* Tue Aug 29 2017 Michal Vala <mv...@redhat.com> - 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?
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 .
Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1
Seriously? Does Java 9 still require legacy Type1 fonts in 2017?
# 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?
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
...
#images stub
%global jdkimage jdk
It's also full of typos and unintelligible comments, for example:
# elfutils ony are ok for built without AOT
I have no idea what the above means.
Or this:
# Zero-assembler build requirement.
Comments are supposed to explain something. The one above doesn't.
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.
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
