[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora_requires_release_note|fedora_requires_release_note |? |+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-15 14:24 EST --- Definitely should be included in the F8 Release Notes. The Docs Project could use some help in including the content, since we are very short on manpower at the moment. You can edit content on this page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Java Edits will be picked up by a number of channels we have for notification, so we will see it, do any grammar/style editing necessary, and pass it on to translators. If any knowledgeable individual on this bug's CC list could do this in the next 72 hours, that would be very helpful. Thanks! -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-08 13:03 EST --- Hey, I noticed these were branched for F7, I gave it a whirl and compiled your SRPM for F7 and it seems to work. Are there plans to build this for FC-6/F7? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 05:43 EST --- Here are the updated spec file and SRPM: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fitzsim/java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fitzsim/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.14.b18.snapshot.src.rpm Here is the new snapshot: http://icedtea.classpath.org/download/source/icedtea-1.3-a9c9ee1b6479a84f2153be67fce85b0dbf371398.tar.gz The updated SRPM fixes the remaining release-critical items: 1. plugin location on x86_64 2. documentation for -plugin and -src 3. licensing issues 4. s/OpenJDK/IcedTea/ in version output -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:06 EST --- BTW any chances to see powerpc-version of IcedTea? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:26 EST --- David Walluck pointed out on IRC that IcedTea should use the system versions of third-party libraries it requires (e.g., libpng). I agree and wanted to mention here that we plan to do this work before Fedora 8. I also wanted to mention another plan to solve a problem brought up in this discussion: I would like a cleaner solution to the lib vs lib64 alternatives naming problem. I'm toying with the idea of proposing $LIB support for the alternatives command. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:16 EST --- I forgot to thank Kostas for his patch and him and everyone else for their interest in this. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:11 EST --- Approved Thanks, Tom! I know there's still work to be done, but this is an excellent addition to Fedora and I look forward to its inclusion. Don't forget to do the fedora-cvs flag setting and requesting. I'd also say that a release note is in order, but I'll leave that up to you to set the flag or not (not that I really know what it does ;). -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:14 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) BTW any chances to see powerpc-version of IcedTea? We're working on PowerPC support. We're investigating using CACAO's JIT as a short-term solution and longer term we're working on a PPC port of Hotspot. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora_requires_release_note ||?, fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 09:35 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: java-1.7.0-icedtea Short Description: IcedTea Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 10:26 EST --- CVS Done. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-28 17:14 EST --- java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.14.b18.snapshot.fc8 built successfully in Rawhide. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-27 14:48 EST --- My build went fine on x86_64. I've reviewed the rpmlint output for the binary RPMs. When read in light of the comments above, I'm okay with most of the issues. I've attached the rpmlint output for brevity's sake. Here are the only remaining issues as I see them: Release critical items: 1. move plugin on x86_64 as per Kostas' patch 2. remove useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext 3. are you going to disable soname generation for the dlopen'd .sos? 4. should there be documentation for -plugin and -src? Non-critical but please fix before F8: 1. fix missing shebang and permissions on sample/scripting/scriptpad/src/scripts/memory.sh 2. other non-critical items brought up by rpmlint (see comments above and attached rpmlint output) Thanks, Tom! It'll be great to have IcedTea in Fedora. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-27 14:56 EST --- Created an attachment (id=174201) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=174201action=view) rpmlint output on x86_64 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-27 15:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #24) Release critical items: 1. move plugin on x86_64 as per Kostas' patch Will do. 2. remove useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext Although I said I should remove this in the comments above, after re-reading the comment I left myself in the spec file, I think both these explicit provides are necessary: # Both these versioned provides need to be here since either may be # required explicitly. Requiring the first one means requiring a # version of the JDBC API; requiring the second one means requiring # the JDBC API provided by this version of the JDK. This convention # comes from JPackage. 3. are you going to disable soname generation for the dlopen'd .sos? I'd rather that this wait until post-F8 since fixing it will be fiddly and it won't negatively affect the initial release. 4. should there be documentation for -plugin and -src? Yeah, probably a good idea, just to explain what they are. I'll write two READMEs. Some new minor licensing issues came to our attention today. They're very similar to the ones we discussed above. Lillian Angel and I are currently working around the newly-discovered issues and we'll keep the workaround list up-to-date in the IcedTea README. I consider these issues release-critical, but we should have things ready-to-go by later today. Non-critical but please fix before F8: 1. fix missing shebang and permissions on sample/scripting/scriptpad/src/scripts/memory.sh 2. other non-critical items brought up by rpmlint (see comments above and attached rpmlint output) Yes, thanks for the summary. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-27 15:13 EST --- One more item: we need to patch the version string so that: $ /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea/bin/java -version java version 1.7.0 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0-mockbuild_23_aug_2007_17_44-b00) OpenJDK Client VM (build 1.7.0-mockbuild_23_aug_2007_17_44-b00, mixed mode) becomes $ /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea/bin/java -version java version 1.7.0 IcedTea Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0-mockbuild_23_aug_2007_17_44-b00) IcedTea Client VM (build 1.7.0-mockbuild_23_aug_2007_17_44-b00, mixed mode) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-25 19:14 EST --- Under x86_64 the plugin rpm requires and is installed under /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, it should be /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-25 21:14 EST --- Created an attachment (id=172721) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=172721action=view) install the plugin at /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins under x86_64 Here is a patch to install the plugin at /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins. Note that the alternatives name had to be changed to something else than libjavaplugin.so since otherwise it fails with: the primary link for libjavaplugin.so must be /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin.so error: %post(java-1.7.0-icedtea-plugin-1.7.0.0-0.13.b18.snapshotFC7.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 2 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-24 06:33 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) What about just restricting all ports in the default configuration? I put java-rmi.cgi in its own subpackage so that it is completely optional, and to isolate the cgibindir requirement. Other options would be to move the script to the demo subpackage or just not include it in the IcedTea packages. It got dropped from windows at 1.1 http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6512052 http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4418631 and nobody really cared so I don't think it will be missed here either. Is the java-rmi.cgi script actually deployed frequently, or is it just meant as a demo for system administrators? The comments seem to suggest that it's useful in practice and not just a demo. If it's actually deployed frequently, I'd like to keep the subpackage + cgibindir requirement + all ports locked down. This minimizes the fiddling needed to get the script working while still providing out-of-the-box security. On the other hand, if java-rmi.cgi is just a toy then it should go in the demo subpackage and we can drop the cgibindir requirement in favour of a README. I never had to deploy it but I don't have any rmi programs either. I suspect that anyone that needs rmi will try to open the firewall ports first and if for some reason it's not possible and the proxy is required they will go for the servlet version instead of the cgi. It's best to ask around for someone that uses rmi just to make sure though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-24 10:39 EST --- I'll take this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-24 15:51 EST --- Andrew requested a full SRPM. Here it is, along with the exact spec file used to create it: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fitzsim/java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fitzsim/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.12.b18.snapshot.src.rpm In addition, I've posted the IcedTea snapshot so that its md5sum is verifiable: http://icedtea.classpath.org/download/source/icedtea-1.3-200060a622000dd98da0ad0c3f4d1e5d49e350bc.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development
environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-24 16:12 EST ---
MUST items:
? package is named appropriately
- falls in line with JPackage JVM naming
- what's going to happen with the release tag when we hit 1.3? Will it just
be 1.3%{?dist}? Or will we always have the leading
0.NN.%{openjdkver}.%{icedtearelease}?
OK it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
- assuming the assumptions about the three things listed in comment #14 are
okay
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible.
OK specfile name matches %{name}
NEEDS_FIXING verify source and patches
- there's a 1.19 missing in the java-access-bridge URL
- if I get the actual java-access-bridge tarball, all of the source files
check out
OK summary and description fine
OK acceptable buildroot
OK %{?dist} used correctly
OK license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
- except for the /usr/lib on x86_64 stuff which I'm okay with, I think we're
good
OK changelog fine
OK Packager tag not used
OK Vendor tag not used
OK Distribution tag not used
OK use License and not Copyright
OK Summary tag should not end in a period
OK if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK specfile is legible
? package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
- I don't have enough disk space on my laptop. I'm trying a build on another
box and will report back when it's done.
OK BuildRequires are proper
- I know Tom's done mock builds so I'm going to assume they're okay
OK summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK description expands upon summary
OK make sure lines are = 80 characters
- except for changelog lines, I think we're okay
OK specfile written in American English
OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- the package layout is JPackage-standard and we have -javadoc for API docs
? packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
- I guess I'll have to wait until my build finishes
? are the rpath issues all sorted out in the comments above?
OK config files marked with %config(noreplace)
OK not a GUI app so no .desktop
OK macros used appropriately and consistently
OK don't use %makeinstall
OK install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- no locale data
NEEDS_FIXING consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
- can we add -p to the accessibility bridge copying?
OK split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK package should probably not be relocatable
OK package contains code
OK package should own all directories and files
OK there should be no %files duplicates
OK file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK %clean should be present
OK %doc files should not affect runtime
OK rpmlint on this package.srpm gives no output
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
- I'm okay with this as alternatives for x86_64 and 32-bit JVMs is very
important ... it's also consistent with JPackage standards
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea configure-without-libdir-spec
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea configure-without-libdir-spec
- I see Tom's comment in comment #1 about this and I'm okay with it. Does
anyone disagree?
? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
- awaiting results
? run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
- awaiting results
SHOULD items:
OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
? package should build on i386
- awaiting results
? package should build in mock
- awaiting results
Remaining issues:
- rmi cgi script - are we keeping it?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 07:36 EST --- Why not to provide all necessary files in SRPM-package? Why it's ugly nosrc-package? Looks like something from the past, then we can't distribute java sourcecode. Another one technical note - it's a bad idea not to provide direct link to spec-file but only link to mercurial page. And one more tech note: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ LANG=C rpmbuild -ba java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec error: Architecture is not included: i386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ So... Java cannot be built on x86?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 07:39 EST --- There were some legal issues covering some of the files which didn't appear to be free software. We've fixed those now and we expect soon to provide a real RPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 09:38 EST --- The nosrc format also conserves space and bandwidth for icedtea.classpath.org which is hosted by a GNU Classpath community member. The first SRPM will be available when the first Fedora build completes. Why not refer to a Mercurial revision? Try: LANG=C rpmbuild -ba --target i586 java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec It's an i586 RPM rather than an i386 RPM because the JIT emits i586-level instructions that will not run on processors earlier than i586. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 10:15 EST --- I'll post the raw-file link instead: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/fedora/raw-file/d30f0842b5c3/java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 11:41 EST --- A few initial questions: - why the need for snapshot in the release? - is the license tag okay as it's stated? - where does the access bridge source come from? - is generate-cacerts.pl in version control somewhere? - do we really need the registered trademark notice in %description? - why doesn't the CGI script work on x86_64? can we have a note about it in the spec? - rather than IcedTea Plugin can we have something more descriptive? Browser plugin or Mozilla plugin or something? - why the two stages of symlinking around line 313? - why the ghost touching? - should the man pages work with alternatives? or do I always have to use 'man java-java-1.7.0-icedtea? looking at the stuff in %post, it appears it should work. - do some of the single quotes around line 384 need escaping? - you had mentioned issues with binfmt_misc at one point to me - is that sorted out? - wow, the number of alternatives is crazy! I'll try building now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 12:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) A few initial questions: - why the need for snapshot in the release? The release string format is: significant_digits.OpenJDK_build.IcedTea_version IcedTea_version = snapshot means that the IcedTea tarball is a snapshot rather than an IcedTea release. I will include IcedTea 1.3 when it is released. - is the license tag okay as it's stated? Yes, that's the new rpmlint-suggested License tag format. - where does the access bridge source come from? http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/java-access-bridge/ I'll add a comment in the spec file. - is generate-cacerts.pl in version control somewhere? Yes: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/fedora/raw-file/f38a4e9e2134/generate-cacerts.pl - do we really need the registered trademark notice in %description? No, I suppose not. - why doesn't the CGI script work on x86_64? can we have a note about it in the spec? No good reason I can see. We plan to enable it before Fedora 8. I can add a comment in the meantime. - rather than IcedTea Plugin can we have something more descriptive? Browser plugin or Mozilla plugin or something? Sure. - why the two stages of symlinking around line 313? So that you can specify e.g., a sasl jar, a sasl 1.7.0 jar or the sasl 1.7.0.0 jar. $ ls -l /usr/lib/jvm-exports/jre-1.7.0-icedtea/sasl* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 2007-07-14 21:51 /usr/lib/jvm-exports/jre-1.7.0-icedtea/sasl-1.7.0.0.jar - ../../jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/lib/rt.jar lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2007-07-14 21:51 /usr/lib/jvm-exports/jre-1.7.0-icedtea/sasl-1.7.0.jar - sasl-1.7.0.0.jar lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2007-07-14 21:51 /usr/lib/jvm-exports/jre-1.7.0-icedtea/sasl.jar - sasl-1.7.0.0.jar - why the ghost touching? ISTR this addressing some RPM warning. I'll experiment with it for the next package build. - should the man pages work with alternatives? or do I always have to use 'man java-java-1.7.0-icedtea? looking at the stuff in %post, it appears it should work. They should work, e.g. man java should bring up java-java-1.7.0-icedtea when IcedTea's java alternative is selected. - do some of the single quotes around line 384 need escaping? No, the three strings are concatenated in shell, e.g.: $ echo 'a'b'c' abc - you had mentioned issues with binfmt_misc at one point to me - is that sorted out? I'm not sure what issues I mentioned. I enabled binfmt_misc as an experiment so that people could try it. I'm not sure if it's useful or not. It only helps on the command-line, since GNOME uses a different mechanism for executing files. - wow, the number of alternatives is crazy! Yes, but all (except maybe the jce policy one) are necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 16:19 EST --- Here are the updated spec file and nosrc RPM, which have the ecj 3.3 workaround and should build in Rawhide: Spec URL: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/fedora/raw-file/7d5daf9e46e0/java-1.7.0-icedtea.spec SRPM URL: http://icedtea.classpath.org/download/fedora/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.12.b18.snapshot.nosrc.rpm I'm testing a mock build now. Here's the changelog: - Fully qualify Java Access Bridge for GNOME and generate-cacerts source paths. - Fix plugin post alternatives invocation. - Include IcedTea documentation. - Update icedteasnapshot. I didn't fix items that don't seem release-critical: I didn't fix memory.sh because it's only a demo file, I didn't eliminate sonames in demo files and I didn't look into why we touch ghosted files. I'll fix all these later in the Fedora 8 release cycle. With the inclusion of the IcedTea documentation the licensing situation is now clearly explained. The NoSource comment was out-dated so I updated it. Here is the relevant excerpt from IcedTea's README: A Note About License Headers Some sources downloaded from openjdk.java.net do not display the GPL license header. Instances are: - The files in openjdk/j2se/src/share/classes/javax/xml/stream/ seem to comprise the BEA-StAX source code http://ftpna2.bea.com/pub/downloads/jsr173.jar with some Sun-specific modifications. We're assuming that Sun is bundling BEA-StAX under the terms of the Apache License 2.0 and that the modifications are owned by Sun. - We are assuming that these files are owned by Sun: openjdk/j2se/src/share/classes/**/resources/*.properties The downloaded sources include two scripts that insert proprietary license headers into the source files they generate. The scripts themselves are GPL'd so we patched them to emit the GPL header. These files are: openjdk/j2se/make/java/nio/genExceptions.sh openjdk/hotspot/src/share/vm/prims/jvmtiLib.xsl I've CC'ed Tom Callaway for a second opinion: Tom does this reasoning satisfy you that IcedTea can be shipped in Fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 19:31 EST --- Is it sensible to drop java-rmi.cgi in cgi-bin considering that it's puprose is to tunnel rmi to any host/port bypassing any local firewall? Here is what http://java.sun.com/developer/onlineTraining/rmi/RMI.html says about it: Additionally, using the java-rmi.cgi script exposes a fairly large security loophole on your server machine, as now, the script can redirect any incoming request to any port, completely bypassing your firewalling mechanism. IMHO it would be better to install it somewhere else, anyone that needs to use it will have to modify it anyway to restrict to specific ports at the minimum so it's more of an example than a usefull application. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-23 21:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #15) Is it sensible to drop java-rmi.cgi in cgi-bin considering that it's puprose is to tunnel rmi to any host/port bypassing any local firewall? Here is what http://java.sun.com/developer/onlineTraining/rmi/RMI.html says about it: Additionally, using the java-rmi.cgi script exposes a fairly large security loophole on your server machine, as now, the script can redirect any incoming request to any port, completely bypassing your firewalling mechanism. IMHO it would be better to install it somewhere else, anyone that needs to use it will have to modify it anyway to restrict to specific ports at the minimum so it's more of an example than a usefull application. What about just restricting all ports in the default configuration? I put java-rmi.cgi in its own subpackage so that it is completely optional, and to isolate the cgibindir requirement. Other options would be to move the script to the demo subpackage or just not include it in the IcedTea packages. Is the java-rmi.cgi script actually deployed frequently, or is it just meant as a demo for system administrators? The comments seem to suggest that it's useful in practice and not just a demo. If it's actually deployed frequently, I'd like to keep the subpackage + cgibindir requirement + all ports locked down. This minimizes the fiddling needed to get the script working while still providing out-of-the-box security. On the other hand, if java-rmi.cgi is just a toy then it should go in the demo subpackage and we can drop the cgibindir requirement in favour of a README. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development
environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-21 07:06 EST ---
rpmlint commentary:
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.nosrc.rpm
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
See comment in spec file:
# Hard-code libdir on 64-bit architectures to make the 64-bit JDK
# simply be another alternative.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea configure-without-libdir-spec
The %configure macro causes problems for IcedTea. I plan to fix this before
Fedora 8, but it doesn't seem release critical.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext
This comes from JPackage. I'll remove it from the next package build.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/bin/keytool
['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli']
rpmlint should check for $ORIGIN before issuing this message since $ORIGIN
rpaths are not hard-coded.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/lib/security/cacerts
IcedTea expects jre/lib/security files to be in this location. I plan to fix
this before Fedora 8 but it is not release-critical.
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea uncompressed-zip
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar
This is an rpmlint bug: the jar file is compressed.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/demo/jvmti/hprof/src/hprof_error.h
These are fine since the demo package contains demos geared towards
developers.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/sample/scripting/scriptpad/src/scripts/memory.sh
0555
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/sample/scripting/scriptpad/src/scripts/memory.sh
I'll fix these in the next package build.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo invalid-soname
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so
libmtrace.so
These files are meant to be dlopen'd, not linked-to directly, so they should
not have a versioned soname.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-devel-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea-devel dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.7.0-icedtea java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0
/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0 is provided by the base
package which java-1.7.0-icedtea-devel requires.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-javadoc-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
No warnings or errors.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-plugin-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea-plugin no-documentation
This subpackage doesn't require documentation.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-rmi-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea-plugin no-documentation
Likewise.
$ rpmlint java-1.7.0-icedtea-src-1.7.0.0-0.11.b18.snapshot.i586.rpm
W: java-1.7.0-icedtea-src no-documentation
Likewise.
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea-src only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Applications that refer to src.zip expect it to be in JAVA_HOME.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-21 07:10 EST --- I noticed that I didn't package the IcedTea documentation. I'll do so in the next build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-21 07:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Not a full review, just a few observations: E: java-1.7.0-icedtea binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/bin/keytool ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] rpmlint should check for $ORIGIN before issuing this message since $ORIGIN rpaths are not hard-coded. Not all $ORIGIN RPATHs are desirable anyway though. See /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker in = 4.4.2.1 rpm-build versions (or rpmdevtools = 5.4) and/or try building the package with these checks enabled (see rpmdev-setuptree) to see if it flags them as bad. W: java-1.7.0-icedtea uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar This is an rpmlint bug: the jar file is compressed. Can you upload the binary package or just the jsse.jar which triggers this message somewhere so I can check what's up? E: java-1.7.0-icedtea-demo invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so libmtrace.so These files are meant to be dlopen'd, not linked-to directly, so they should not have a versioned soname. Isn't versioning the very purpose of sonames? What would a versionless soname be useful for? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments
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-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-21 11:12 EST --- I ran: find /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.7.0-icedtea-1.7.0.0 -type f -print0 | xargs -0r /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker and it didn't produce any warning or error messages. I was wrong about the uncompressed-zip warnings: the jars are created with jar c0mf, probably to speed class loading. Are most jars created this way for lookup speed? If so, maybe rpmlint should treat jars differently from zip files... Yes, you're right: I should eliminate soname generation altogether for those dlopen'd DSOs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
