https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System ---
java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.22-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System ---
java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.22-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #66 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #64 from Fedora Update System ---
java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.22-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-baca028a2f
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #65 from Fedora Update System ---
java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.22-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-18ba63a547
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #63 from jiri vanek ---
Package is mostly built. Waiting for s390x or ppc64 on mostof the builds. Will
do updates asap
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #62 from Mohan Boddu ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-11-openjdk
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #61 from Severin Gehwolf ---
The review above is valid. I'm the same person. However, only this account has
Fedora related groups so that I can set fedora_review+.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|sgehw...@redhat.com |jerb...@gmail.com
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #60 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #58)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #53)
> > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #50)
> > > spec and srpm updated
> > >
> > > new scratch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #59 from jiri vanek ---
hi Sewerin!
Acording to "https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7347; :
The review is not approved by the assignee of the Bugzilla bug
Somebody (obviously) do not like your double account.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #58 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #53)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #50)
> > spec and srpm updated
> >
> > new scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096637
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #57 from jiri vanek ---
f27+f28 branches
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7348
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7349
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #56 from jiri vanek ---
Thanx
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7347
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jerb...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #55 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Looks good to me. The AArch 64 build failure is nothing the package review can
change.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
=
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #54 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #53)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #50)
> > spec and srpm updated
> >
> > new scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096637
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #53 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #50)
> spec and srpm updated
>
> new scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096637
As to the s390x failure I've been told that s390x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #52 from jiri vanek ---
Sorry. Done
--
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
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #51 from Severin Gehwolf ---
+# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
+# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
+%ifnarch %{arm}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
Now that comment is wrong. Please just remove
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #50 from jiri vanek ---
spec and srpm updated
new scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28096637
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #49 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #48)
> -# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
> -# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
> -%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
> %global
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #48 from Severin Gehwolf ---
-# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
-# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
-%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
%global include_debug_build 0
@@
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #47 from jiri vanek ---
All new issues should be fixed. Thank you for your review!
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #46 from jiri vanek ---
>
> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> Note: %defattr present but not needed
>
>
> Not yet fixed.
Sorry. was forgotten
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #45 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Isn't Shenandoah expected to be present? At least on x86_64? Seems not (from
the scratch build)
sh-4.4# /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/bin/java -version
openjdk version "11-ea" 2018-09-25
OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #44 from Severin Gehwolf ---
# Temporarily disable slowdebug build for Aarch64 since it does not
# bootcycle. See JDK-8204331.
%ifnarch %{arm} %{aarch64}
%global include_debug_build 1
%else
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #43 from jiri vanek ---
Done:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/c/58db6624a43260e79c79b87f7fe19d73ab0954df?branch=java-11-openjdk
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #42 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Please also add this to the License comment clarifying public_suffix_list.dat:
diff --git a/java-11-openjdk.spec b/java-11-openjdk.spec
index 5ca02ed..c50a311 100644
--- a/java-11-openjdk.spec
+++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #41 from jiri vanek ---
> Scracth build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28070907
> As it is based on +20 of shenandoah project
> My local build on shenandoah-arch keep running in time of this posting
Failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #40 from jiri vanek ---
All issues you pickd up should be fixed. Thank you for your review!
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #39 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #37)
> jdk11 havebeen forked.
> >
> > It's been suggested that http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk is the
> > Shenandoah dev forest and we should not be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #38 from jiri vanek ---
>
> $ wget http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/archive/jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
> $ tar -xf jdk-jdk-11+19.tar.bz2
> $ cd jdk-jdk-11+19
> $ rm -rf src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl
> $ patch -Np1 <
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #37 from jiri vanek ---
jdk11 havebeen forked.
>
> It's been suggested that http://hg.openjdk.java.net/shenandoah/jdk is the
> Shenandoah dev forest and we should not be using it. We should be using
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #36 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #18)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
[...]
> -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #35 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #1)
> > This:
> >
> > %global _privatelibs
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #34 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #32)
> > It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This
> > has the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways.
>
> Are they
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment|0 |1
#1455281 is|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #32 from jiri vanek ---
> It seems too risky to keep this without by-in from Shenandoah folks. This
> has the potential to break x86_64 and aarch64 in strange ways.
Are they really out? I'm really afraid of leaving (again)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #31 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #18)
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed (FE-Legal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #30 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #28)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #23)
> > $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq
> > Apache GPL (v2)
> > Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #29 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #27)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #17)
> > # to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run
> > update_package.sh
> > # update_package.sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #28 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #23)
> $ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq
> Apache GPL (v2)
> Apache (v2.0)
> Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE
> BSD (2 clause)
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #27 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #17)
> # to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run update_package.sh
> # update_package.sh contains hardcoded repos, revisions, tags, and projects
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #24 from Severin Gehwolf ---
CDDL is from the hotspot ideal graph visualizer:
$ grep CDDL review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #23 from Severin Gehwolf ---
$ cut -d':' -f2 review-java-11-openjdk/licensecheck.out | sort | uniq
Apache GPL (v2)
Apache (v2.0)
Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE
BSD (2 clause)
BSD (3 clause)
BSD (3 clause) GENERATED FILE
BSD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #21 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Created attachment 1455281
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455281=edit
Patch with suggested license changes.
This patch needs a legal review.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #20 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Created attachment 1455279
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455279=edit
licensecheck output.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #19 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Created attachment 1455277
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1455277=edit
Full review.txt with rpmlint output.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #18 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed (FE-Legal clarification)
Issues:
===
- Package java-11-openjdk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #17 from Severin Gehwolf ---
# to regenerate source0 and source1(shenandaoh hotspot) run update_package.sh
# update_package.sh contains hardcoded repos, revisions, tags, and projects to
regenerate the source archives
# at the end
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #16 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #14)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7)
> > > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #15 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10)
> Fixed. You have some sript to generate this befor buid? Or from build itslef?
> Used.
I've used something like this:
$ grep 'lib.*\.so'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #14 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7)
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek ---
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/c/1ae669ee38b50409dd95eb5be6c57066a0986fbd?branch=java-11-openjdk
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #6)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #3)
> > > Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #11 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #2)
> Patch6: systemLcmsAndJpgFixFor-f0aeede1b855.patch
>
> We should start sticking to a better naming scheme for patches. This one is
> an upstream bug and,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #10 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #1)
> This:
>
> %global _privatelibs
> libjsoundalsa[.]so.*|libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so.
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #9 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7)
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch build.
>
> That built successfully.
Of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #8 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7)
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch build.
That built successfully.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf ---
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch build.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #6 from Severin Gehwolf ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #3)
> > Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
> > Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #5 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #3)
> Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
> Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
> Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
>
> Each
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #2)
> Patch6: systemLcmsAndJpgFixFor-f0aeede1b855.patch
>
> We should start sticking to a better naming scheme for patches. This one is
> an upstream bug and,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #3 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
Each of these sources should have a comment preceding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #2 from Severin Gehwolf ---
Patch6: systemLcmsAndJpgFixFor-f0aeede1b855.patch
We should start sticking to a better naming scheme for patches. This one is an
upstream bug and, thus, we need to create an upstream bug if there
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #1 from Severin Gehwolf ---
This:
%global _privatelibs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
Severin Gehwolf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1592196
Referenced Bugs:
75 matches
Mail list logo
