[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed|2017-06-02 13:40:25 |2017-06-27 03:52:28



-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #92 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #91 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #90 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b9d1a0520b

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #89 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b9d1a0520b

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #88 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b9d1a0520b

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #87 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2f213a60e5

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #86 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2f213a60e5

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #85 from Fedora Update System  ---
openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b9d1a0520b

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-06-02 13:40:25



-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #84 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/openjfx

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #83 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #82)
> please remove commented-out code from spec before submit.
> 
> approved. Thank you for great job!

Great, thanks!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Michal Vala  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #82 from Michal Vala  ---
please remove commented-out code from spec before submit.

approved. Thank you for great job!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #81 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #77)
> Issues:
> ===
> - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>   Note: I don't see this as an issue as I would take openjdx as exception

I agree, I tried earlier to pass in %optflags, but it took too much work and
the build script got duplicated.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #80 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #79)
> Maybe one little request about commented-out media and web parts in
> specfile. Can you please remove it or make clear comment why are those
> commented-out?

Media is possible to build with the rpmfusion enabled, web depends on a ZIP
file with precompiled libraries. I think the best is to remove the comments for
now.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #79 from Michal Vala  ---
Maybe one little request about commented-out media and web parts in specfile.
Can you please remove it or make clear comment why are those commented-out?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #78 from Michal Vala  ---
I don't want to block this review any more. All issues were clarified or fixed.
When no other comments show up, I'll approve later today.

Thanks!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #77 from Michal Vala  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
  Note: I don't see this as an issue as I would take openjdx as exception
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
  Note: I see this just when ran via fedora-review tool. I keep it here, but
you can probably ignore it. I can build and install bundles fine.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "MPL (v5)", "MPL (v1.1)
 GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Public domain BSD (3
 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "MPL (v1.1)
 LGPL (v2 or later)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) LGPL
 (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3
 or later)", "QPL (v6)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "CC by (v3.0)", "GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Apache", "NTP
 (legal disclaimer)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3
 clause)", "ICU", "LGPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 BSD (2 clause)", "QPL (v3)", "CC0", "*No copyright* CDDL", "QPL (v7)",
 "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 8649 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #76 from Michal Vala  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #71)
> (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #69)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #68)
> > > You should/must use the "%mvn_install" macro
> > > https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#gradle
> > > e.g. %mvn_install -J build/sdk/docs/api
> > > 
> > > see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#mvn_file to
> > > configure the proper JARs install location.
> > 
> > I will look into %mvn_file and %mvn_install, are you sure that these macros
> > are the best to use for openjfx, since most of the files are going to be
> > installed to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx (no files in /usr/share/java/)
> 
> Our gudeline is pretty clear about JARs installation see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory
> othrewise you couls use mvn_file to set an alternative place or a symlinks
> if necessary "/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx"
> e.g. %mvn_file :@ /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/@
> not sure if this now work ask in fedora-java irc channel for a better
> implementation/configuration


It doesn't make much sense here. Guys elaborated it and came up with solution
to place openjfx beside JDK/JRE and it makes perfect sense to me. Oracle has
jfx included in their JDK and that's what developers expect. We decided to go
with openjfx placed beside JDK and create openjfx subpackage that place links
inside JDK.
Openjdk package itself also "violates" this and openjfx is same case.
So I don't see this to be an issue.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #75 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #71)
> (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #69)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #68)
> > > You should/must use the "%mvn_install" macro
> > > https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#gradle
> > > e.g. %mvn_install -J build/sdk/docs/api
> > > 
> > > see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#mvn_file to
> > > configure the proper JARs install location.
> > 
> > I will look into %mvn_file and %mvn_install, are you sure that these macros
> > are the best to use for openjfx, since most of the files are going to be
> > installed to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx (no files in /usr/share/java/)
> 
> Our gudeline is pretty clear about JARs installation see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory
> othrewise you couls use mvn_file to set an alternative place or a symlinks
> if necessary "/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx"
> e.g. %mvn_file :@ /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/@
> not sure if this now work ask in fedora-java irc channel for a better
> implementation/configuration

The .jar/.so files in the openjfx packages should be "treated" as if they are
part of the openjdk package.

For example, rt.jar is included in java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless and installed
here /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.131-1.b12.fc25.x86_64/jre/lib/rt.jar
without using %mvn_install.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #74 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Updated to latest upstream:

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-10.b04.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #73 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #71)
> Our gudeline is pretty clear about JARs installation see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory
> othrewise you couls use mvn_file to set an alternative place or a symlinks
> if necessary "/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx"
> e.g. %mvn_file :@ /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/@
> not sure if this now work ask in fedora-java irc channel for a better
> implementation/configuration

There have been a long discussion in bug 1145303 about the location of the
libraries. JavaFX is intened to be installed directly into the JRE/JDK
directories, so we ended up installing files to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx and have a
 JRE/JDK subpackage to provide symlinks.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #72 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #67)
> .build-id is clarified by Fabio Valentini and self requires seems to be
> correct in latest state.
> 
> Jonny: Can you please add requires java/java-devel and I suggest licenses as
> GPL2 with classpath exception + BSD for fxpackager?
> 
> If no-one has any other comments and you include these changes, I'll approve
> this review.
> 
> Thanks!

Great, I have uploaded a new version with requires on java/java-devel + updated
license. I will have a look at the comment #68 from Gil and see if I am able to
use %mvn_install/%mvn_file. I also noticed there is a new version.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-9.b03.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #71 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #69)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #68)
> > You should/must use the "%mvn_install" macro
> > https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#gradle
> > e.g. %mvn_install -J build/sdk/docs/api
> > 
> > see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#mvn_file to
> > configure the proper JARs install location.
> 
> I will look into %mvn_file and %mvn_install, are you sure that these macros
> are the best to use for openjfx, since most of the files are going to be
> installed to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx (no files in /usr/share/java/)

Our gudeline is pretty clear about JARs installation see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory
othrewise you couls use mvn_file to set an alternative place or a symlinks if
necessary "/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx"
e.g. %mvn_file :@ /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/@
not sure if this now work ask in fedora-java irc channel for a better
implementation/configuration

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #70 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #66)
> /usr/lib/.build-id is the correct location, so the "hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/lib/.build-id" rpmlint warning is a false positive / can be ignored.
> 
> This directory is present in ~all packages that have been built since RPM in
> rawhide changed this behavior ~a few months back or so (which you can easily
> check by inspecting any recent package from rawhide).

Thanks for providing this information.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #69 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #68)
> You should/must use the "%mvn_install" macro
> https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#gradle
> e.g. %mvn_install -J build/sdk/docs/api
> 
> see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#mvn_file to
> configure the proper JARs install location.

I will look into %mvn_file and %mvn_install, are you sure that these macros are
the best to use for openjfx, since most of the files are going to be installed
to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx (no files in /usr/share/java/)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #68 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #67)
> > 
> > Imho except .build-id, license, which should be GPL2 [do we wont "with
> > classpath exception"?] (javafxpackager BSD) and java/java-devel + self
> > requires we are done here. Can you  publish one more spec+srpm (eventually
> > also with scratch) which we can test?
> > 
> 
> .build-id is clarified by Fabio Valentini and self requires seems to be
> correct in latest state.
> 
> Jonny: Can you please add requires java/java-devel and I suggest licenses as
> GPL2 with classpath exception + BSD for fxpackager?
> 
> If no-one has any other comments and you include these changes, I'll approve
> this review.
> 
> Thanks!

You should/must use the "%mvn_install" macro
https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#gradle
e.g. %mvn_install -J build/sdk/docs/api

see https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/index.html#mvn_file to configure
the proper JARs install location.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #67 from Michal Vala  ---
> 
> Imho except .build-id, license, which should be GPL2 [do we wont "with
> classpath exception"?] (javafxpackager BSD) and java/java-devel + self
> requires we are done here. Can you  publish one more spec+srpm (eventually
> also with scratch) which we can test?
> 

.build-id is clarified by Fabio Valentini and self requires seems to be correct
in latest state.

Jonny: Can you please add requires java/java-devel and I suggest licenses as
GPL2 with classpath exception + BSD for fxpackager?

If no-one has any other comments and you include these changes, I'll approve
this review.

Thanks!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #66 from Fabio Valentini  ---
/usr/lib/.build-id is the correct location, so the "hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/lib/.build-id" rpmlint warning is a false positive / can be ignored.

This directory is present in ~all packages that have been built since RPM in
rawhide changed this behavior ~a few months back or so (which you can easily
check by inspecting any recent package from rawhide).

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #65 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #64)
> Don't move or rename the .build-id directory.
> It's created by RPM itself (it's the location where build IDs for debug info
> etc. are tracked).
> 
> see http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2016-June/004365.html



But then it is in very bad directoryl Where it is supposed to be?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||decatho...@gmail.com



--- Comment #64 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Don't move or rename the .build-id directory.
It's created by RPM itself (it's the location where build IDs for debug info
etc. are tracked).

see http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2016-June/004365.html

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #63 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #62)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #61) 
> > Maybe also your indivdual subpackages (src, javadoc, [devel]) should be
> > bound by NVR[A] with main package. Well the devel have same fun with [arch]
> > :)
> 
> I used openjdk as a guide for what parent package to the subpacakges should
> require. javadoc packages tends to have no requires, while source and devel
> did have requires on the parent. 

yup, go on with that.
> 
> Looks like there will be no issues with require with devel as noarch:
> 
> $ rpm -q --requires -p openjfx-devel-8.0.152-8.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm
> /bin/sh
> openjfx(x86-64) = 8.0.152-8.b03.fc25
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

Thank you for verification.


Imho except .build-id, license, which should be GPL2 [do we wont "with
classpath exception"?] (javafxpackager BSD) and java/java-devel + self requires
we are done here. Can you  publish one more spec+srpm (eventually also with
scratch) which we can test?

TYVM!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #62 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #61) 
> Maybe also your indivdual subpackages (src, javadoc, [devel]) should be
> bound by NVR[A] with main package. Well the devel have same fun with [arch]
> :)

I used openjdk as a guide for what parent package to the subpacakges should
require. javadoc packages tends to have no requires, while source and devel did
have requires on the parent. 

Looks like there will be no issues with require with devel as noarch:

$ rpm -q --requires -p openjfx-devel-8.0.152-8.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm
/bin/sh
openjfx(x86-64) = 8.0.152-8.b03.fc25
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #61 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #60)
> (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #58)
> > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #54)
> > > You are not requireing any "java" ( or "java-devel" for devel subpackage) 
> > > is
> > > it intentional? It may be (and my bindings are bringing those), but do not
> > > gave much sense
> > 
> > I did not want to introduce premature requires, I think now is a good time
> > to decide what requires each package should have.
> 
> Probably good idea.
> 
> Currently on my side:
> 
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx requires java-1.8.0-openjdk and openjfx
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-debug requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-debug and
> openjfx
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel and
> openjfx-devel
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel-debug requires
> java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-debug and openjfx-devel
> 
> Feel free to  ignore debug variants.  They have nothing to do with you.
> java and java devel is always required in same VRA as fx subpackage.  In
> adition, openjdfx is required in same architecture as fx subpackage. See the
> patch from #c56
> 
> I think that your packages needs only:
> openjfx requires java
> openjfx-devel requires java-devel
> 
> 
> Still I do not claims it as best idea, nor I'm saying that mya laready
> pushed requires are best what could be done. But well.. what else to do :)


Maybe also your indivdual subpackages (src, javadoc, [devel]) should be bound
by NVR[A] with main package. Well the devel have same fun with [arch] :)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #60 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #58)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #54)
> > You are not requireing any "java" ( or "java-devel" for devel subpackage) is
> > it intentional? It may be (and my bindings are bringing those), but do not
> > gave much sense
> 
> I did not want to introduce premature requires, I think now is a good time
> to decide what requires each package should have.

Probably good idea.

Currently on my side:

java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx requires java-1.8.0-openjdk and openjfx
java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-debug requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-debug and openjfx
java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel and
openjfx-devel
java-1.8.0-openjdk-openjfx-devel-debug requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-debug
and openjfx-devel

Feel free to  ignore debug variants.  They have nothing to do with you.
java and java devel is always required in same VRA as fx subpackage.  In
adition, openjdfx is required in same architecture as fx subpackage. See the
patch from #c56

I think that your packages needs only:
openjfx requires java
openjfx-devel requires java-devel


Still I do not claims it as best idea, nor I'm saying that mya laready pushed
requires are best what could be done. But well.. what else to do :)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #59 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #55)
> hmm, the devel as noarch is interesting,  but those realy are scripts, and
> jars are plain java. So well ,strange, but ok :)  /jsut for record

That is true, will test with devel as noarch.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #58 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #54)
> You are not requireing any "java" ( or "java-devel" for devel subpackage) is
> it intentional? It may be (and my bindings are bringing those), but do not
> gave much sense

I did not want to introduce premature requires, I think now is a good time to
decide what requires each package should have.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #57 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #53)
> There is /usr/libs/.build-id directory in main package. It should get
> renamed to .openjfx-build-id (or similarly) or move to... I don't know
> where. Is it useful at all?

I did not notice this hidden file, I will not include then file if there are no
code reading it.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #56 from jiri vanek  ---
As this is going to final meter, I had pushed necessary changes to rawhide:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/commit/?id=562d2b38dd83268da9c22d1bf528b877d1235133

and lunched build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19767533
(/me hopes it will pass)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #55 from jiri vanek  ---
hmm, the devel as noarch is interesting,  but those realy are scripts, and jars
are plain java. So well ,strange, but ok :)  /jsut for record

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #54 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #42)
> A quick update:
> 
> Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-8.b03.fc25.src.rpm
> Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19610005
> 
> Changes:
>  * Requires on javapackages-tools (owns /usr/lib/jvm)
>  * Added requires on parent package for devel and src
>  * Moved /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1 to /usr/share/man/ja_JP/man1 (which
> is owned by the filesystem package)
>  * Added %dir %{openjfxdir} in %files for parent package
>  * Added comments why tests are disabled
> 
> 
> I have not looked into any of the license issues, it would be great if other
> have time to help me.

You are not requireing any "java" ( or "java-devel" for devel subpackage) is it
intentional? It may be (and my bindings are bringing those), but do not gave
much sense

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #53 from jiri vanek  ---
There is /usr/libs/.build-id directory in main package. It should get renamed
to .openjfx-build-id (or similarly) or move to... I don't know where. Is it
useful at all?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #52 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #51)
> Re: comment 50
> 
> using modified sources is only required if needed for legal reasons. 
> Otherwise, doing so makes it harder/obfuscated if anyone ever wants to
> verify sources (ie, please don't do it, unless you really have to).

I think the same. And I think there is no reason in this case. Repack of
sources always added burden not worthy of.

Mario, are you ok with keeping sources as they are, but present only license
which aligns with binary shipped  stuff (gpl2 (fxpackager bsd))?


Thanx!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #51 from Rex Dieter  ---
Re: comment 50

using modified sources is only required if needed for legal reasons. 
Otherwise, doing so makes it harder/obfuscated if anyone ever wants to verify
sources (ie, please don't do it, unless you really have to).

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #50 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #49)
> Thanks. I'm ok with that, but let's see if Mario comes up with something
> else.
> 
> Is removing unused code from source bundle easy to do?

I started making a repack script to reduce the size of the tarball, but the
size saved did not justify the increased complexity.

I do not think there are license issues related to unused code, since there are
no redistribution of it.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #49 from Michal Vala  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #46)
> It looks like most the the license issues is from the web mobule that we do
> not package.

Thanks. I'm ok with that, but let's see if Mario comes up with something else.

Is removing unused code from source bundle easy to do?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Mario Torre  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||neug...@redhat.com



--- Comment #48 from Mario Torre  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #46)
> It looks like most the the license issues is from the web mobule that we do
> not package.

I gave a look at the package, it seems a very good start, good work!

> The fxpackager module is licensed BSD

I think the module is also GPLv2+Classpath, there are only few bits in the
Makefile that have no license header, the tool incorrectly deduces them to be
CDDL, but the license for the project applies there.

The webcore stuff is LGPLv2 or later, it's compatible with the GPLv2 but I
understand we don't ship those, so we may want to consider to remove the
sources we don't build/need.

The javascript stuff is more tricky, since it's Apache. Again, if we don't use
those, we may want to remove this code from the source bundles.

That said, I don't think it makes that much of a difference, those are simply
bundled libraries, not part of the JavaFX codebase. I will need to ask for
advice here, but I doubt this is a real issue.

My hope is that we will be able to compile the web stuff too at some point,
that's a really nice feature of JavaFX but we can't use it in the packaged
version.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #47 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #44)
> do you know why those tests are failing? Can't be just excluded instead of
> not run all tests?

The tests for media and web is also executed :(

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #46 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
It looks like most the the license issues is from the web mobule that we do not
package.

The fxpackager module is licensed BSD

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #45 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #44)
> >  * Added comments why tests are disabled
> do you know why those tests are failing? Can't be just excluded instead of
> not run all tests?

Maybe it is not able to lookup the native library.. We can delete the test file
as the first attempt.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #44 from Michal Vala  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #42)
> A quick update:
> 
> Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-8.b03.fc25.src.rpm
> Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19610005
> 
> Changes:
>  * Requires on javapackages-tools (owns /usr/lib/jvm)
>  * Added requires on parent package for devel and src
>  * Moved /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1 to /usr/share/man/ja_JP/man1 (which
> is owned by the filesystem package)
>  * Added %dir %{openjfxdir} in %files for parent package
thanks, looks good

>  * Added comments why tests are disabled
do you know why those tests are failing? Can't be just excluded instead of not
run all tests?

> 
> 
> I have not looked into any of the license issues, it would be great if other
> have time to help me.
Here is output from licensecheck
https://michalvala.fedorapeople.org/openjfx/licensecheck.txt
Looks like openjfx include sources of several libs. I'm not sure how to solve
that technically neither "legally".

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #43 from jiri vanek  ---
> 
> I have not looked into any of the license issues, it would be great if other
> have time to help me.

I did.  Whole fx project should really be GPL2:
Thanx to Mario for pointing out
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/10/rt/file/48902e8e83a9/LICENSE

On other side, it claims to have same license as openjdk;
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/java-1.8.0-openjdk.git/tree/java-1.8.0-openjdk.spec#n811

That is a bit contradiction, so maybe I have bad license in jdk package.

Your statement of:
License:GPL v2 with exceptions and BSD and LGPL v2+ and (LGPL v2+ or
BSD)
seems to be reflecting major of what review tool is saying. Hoowever I would go
with simple GPL-2 with Classpath exception (/me  a bit afraid of BSD in license
field)

The incorrect-fsf-address is actually patch for upstream, so we do not need to
bother with it rigt now.

I will try to find some lawyer around, but with "GPL-2 with Classpath
exception" I think we are ok to go.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #42 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
A quick update:

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-8.b03.fc25.src.rpm
Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19610005

Changes:
 * Requires on javapackages-tools (owns /usr/lib/jvm)
 * Added requires on parent package for devel and src
 * Moved /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1 to /usr/share/man/ja_JP/man1 (which is
owned by the filesystem package)
 * Added %dir %{openjfxdir} in %files for parent package
 * Added comments why tests are disabled


I have not looked into any of the license issues, it would be great if other
have time to help me.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #41 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #40)
> Just add: "Requires: javapackages-tools"

Thanks

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #40 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #39)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #37)
> > As for [1], Im wondering from where /usr/lib/jvm comes from... (as it should
> > not own it, unlike other mentioned by review tool)
> 
> Yes, /usr/lib/jvm sounds like a bug in the review tool, maybe it is
> triggered by no owner of /usr/lib/jvm/openjf

Just add: "Requires: javapackages-tools"

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #39 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #37)
> As for [1], Im wondering from where /usr/lib/jvm comes from... (as it should
> not own it, unlike other mentioned by review tool)

Yes, /usr/lib/jvm sounds like a bug in the review tool, maybe it is triggered
by no owner of /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx?

> Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable
Thanks, I forgot that one, for all subpackages or only -devel?

> Are necessary to fix. otherwise great job, all! TYVM
Thanks, I am happy to help.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #38 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #36)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
>   Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> - There are more different licenses than mentioned in spec file. run
> licensecheck
> - Skipped tests. Run them or make clear why they're not run.
> - Package does not own all dirs it creates. 

Thanks for doing a review, I will look at these issues during this week/weekend

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #37 from jiri vanek  ---
Hi!
Except of other issues Michal will surely rise, I think

Package must own all directories that it creates[1]
  +
Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable

Are necessary to fix. otherwise great job, all! TYVM

As for [1], Im wondering from where /usr/lib/jvm comes from... (as it should
not own it, unlike other mentioned by review tool)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #36 from Michal Vala  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- There are more different licenses than mentioned in spec file. run
licensecheck
- Skipped tests. Run them or make clear why they're not run.
- Package does not own all dirs it creates. 


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "MPL
 (v5)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Public
 domain BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
 "MPL (v1.1) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "MPL
 (v1.1) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "LGPL (v2 or
 later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "zlib/libpng", "QPL (v6)", "GPL (v2 or
 later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "CC by
 (v3.0)", "GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright*
 Public domain", "Apache", "NTP (legal disclaimer)", "*No copyright*
 BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ICU", "LGPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "QPL (v3)", "CC0", "*No
 copyright* CDDL", "QPL (v7)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 8711
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1,
 /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8,
 /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx, /usr/lib/jvm, /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is 

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Michal Vala  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mv...@redhat.com



-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #35 from Michal Vala  ---
I can build it in mock. So I guess it's ok.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #34 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Do you have some more information? It builds on koji
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19564638

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Michal Vala  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mv...@redhat.com



--- Comment #33 from Michal Vala  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #32)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #31)
> > Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145303#c93
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > Btw.. I can see there was already several various commentators, but no one
> > took the bug.  As I myself participate in decisions and java-1.8.0-openjdk I
> > dont wont to take it unless there are other options
> 
> I updated the .spec and srpm file with a -devel sub package, let me know how
> it fits.
> 
> Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.src.rpm

Hi,
I'm unable to build. Got this error:

+ /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz
--dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max-die-limit 11000
/home/mvala/rpmbuild/BUILD/rt-8u152-b03
extracting debug info from
/home/mvala/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc26.x86_64/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/rt/lib/amd64/libglass.so
*** ERROR: No build ID note found in
/home/mvala/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc26.x86_64/usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/rt/lib/amd64/libglass.so
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.waBuNH (%install)

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #32 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #31)
> Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145303#c93

Thanks.

> Btw.. I can see there was already several various commentators, but no one
> took the bug.  As I myself participate in decisions and java-1.8.0-openjdk I
> dont wont to take it unless there are other options

I updated the .spec and srpm file with a -devel sub package, let me know how it
fits.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #31 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #30)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #29)
> > I had split the links to runtime and devel, don't you think it have sense to
> > split also yours package?
> 
> I think it make sense and it should be easy to split the package. I have not
> slitted it yet to avoid adding complexity.
> 
> Can you start a discussion on bug 1145303?

Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145303#c93

Btw.. I can see there was already several various commentators, but no one took
the bug.  As I myself participate in decisions and java-1.8.0-openjdk I dont
wont to take it unless there are other options

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #30 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #29)
> I had split the links to runtime and devel, don't you think it have sense to
> split also yours package?

I think it make sense and it should be easy to split the package. I have not
slitted it yet to avoid adding complexity.

Can you start a discussion on bug 1145303?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #29 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #28)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #27)
> > Jsut quick check, and looks good. Tahnx!
> 
> Great, just let me know when you have a symlink/subpackage that I can test
> building/installing.

Here you go:
scratch build for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19487720
srpm+patch+f24binaries: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/jfxsupport/v1/

The fx subpackages currently dont have nay provides/requires on yours, to
simplify   testing.
I expect to make them depend on yours package in future. Nothing else (unless
agreed)

I had split the links to runtime and devel, don't you think it have sense to
split also yours package?

Thoughts welcomed, thanx!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #28 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #27)
> Jsut quick check, and looks good. Tahnx!

Great, just let me know when you have a symlink/subpackage that I can test
building/installing.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #27 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #26)
> I have updated the SPEC to include all comments, ready for another review:
> 
> Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
> SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-6.b03.fc25.src.rpm

Jsut quick check, and looks good. Tahnx!

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #26 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
I have updated the SPEC to include all comments, ready for another review:

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-6.b03.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #25 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #24)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #21)
> > ExclusiveArch:  x86 x86_64
> > 
> >  intels only  is also upstream verdict?
> 
> Yes, upstream checks during build:
> 
> 
> > } else if (IS_LINUX && OS_ARCH != "i386" && OS_ARCH != "amd64") {
> >throw new Exception("Unknown and unsupported build architecture: 
> > $OS_ARCH")
> > }
> 
> Debian have patches for fixing #IFDEF's in the source code. I will not have
> time to maintain a large set of patches, but I welcome any co-maintainers to
> do that.

Sure thanx!

I hope me an Mario (especially Mario, for some reason he likes javafx:)  will
be able to help.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #24 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #21)
> ExclusiveArch:  x86 x86_64
> 
>  intels only  is also upstream verdict?

Yes, upstream checks during build:


> } else if (IS_LINUX && OS_ARCH != "i386" && OS_ARCH != "amd64") {
>throw new Exception("Unknown and unsupported build architecture: $OS_ARCH")
> }

Debian have patches for fixing #IFDEF's in the source code. I will not have
time to maintain a large set of patches, but I welcome any co-maintainers to do
that.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #22 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #19)
> RPM build errors:
> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)
> ERROR: Exception(openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm)
> Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 2 minutes 19 seconds
> INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
> ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
> 
> I guess it is due to new autosetup macro at %autosetup -S git -n rt-8u152-b02
> 
> So buildrequires git is still mandatory.

Thanks, I did not know that

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #23 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20)
> Also the link(s) to bindir keeps missing.

Yes, on my TODO

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #21 from jiri vanek  ---
ExclusiveArch:  x86 x86_64

 intels only  is also upstream verdict?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #20 from jiri vanek  ---
Also the link(s) to bindir keeps missing.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek  ---
Complete!
Finish: build setup for openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm
Start: rpmbuild openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm
Building target platforms: x86_64
Building for target x86_64
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ rm -rf rt-8u152-b02
+ /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/8u152-b02.tar.bz2
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd rt-8u152-b02
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ /usr/bin/git init -q
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH: line 42: /usr/bin/git: No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)


RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)
ERROR: Exception(openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm)
Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 2 minutes 19 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.

I guess it is due to new autosetup macro at %autosetup -S git -n rt-8u152-b02

So buildrequires git is still mandatory.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #18 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> is the https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-4.b00.fc25.src.rpm
> semi stable? Can I add symliks to openjdk8 in rawhide?

Newer version (still WIP) is located here:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #17 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #15)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> > is the https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-4.b00.fc25.src.rpm
> > semi stable? Can I add symliks to openjdk8 in rawhide?
> 
> Technically they should be semi stable, but there might be political reasons
> to change location. Lack of time have stopped me from doing all the changes

I see:(
> based on the feedback from Per and Gil

(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #16)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14)
> > Btw - the .spec of yours - javafxpackager and javapackager are not on path.
> > Is it intentional?
> > 
> > If  not, I would recommend to link them to %{_bindir}/
> 
> Not intentional, but I know that one of them are deprecated.

So at least second one?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #16 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14)
> Btw - the .spec of yours - javafxpackager and javapackager are not on path.
> Is it intentional?
> 
> If  not, I would recommend to link them to %{_bindir}/

Not intentional, but I know that one of them are deprecated.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #15 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #13)
> is the https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-4.b00.fc25.src.rpm
> semi stable? Can I add symliks to openjdk8 in rawhide?

Technically they should be semi stable, but there might be political reasons to
change location. Lack of time have stopped me from doing all the changes based
on the feedback from Per and Gil

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek  ---
Btw - the .spec of yours - javafxpackager and javapackager are not on path. Is
it intentional?

If  not, I would recommend to link them to %{_bindir}/

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jva...@redhat.com



--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek  ---
is the https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-4.b00.fc25.src.rpm semi
stable? Can I add symliks to openjdk8 in rawhide?

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Per Bothner from comment #11)
> I did that.  Results:
> 
> I was able to build Kawa from source, with the --with-javafx configure flag
> (which requires some javafx packages).
> 
> I was able to run some simple Kawa-Scheme JavaFX GUI demo scripts.
> 
> I was not able to use the -wjavafx option.  That should open a REPL console
> (using DomTerm http://domterm.org/) in a fresh WebView:
> 
> $ bin/kawa -wjavafx
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javafx/scene/web/WebView
>   at org.domterm.javafx.WebTerminalApp.createScene(WebTerminalApp.java:68)
>   at org.domterm.javafx.WebTerminalApp.start(WebTerminalApp.java:154)

The web (and media) module is not included in the package because of missing
dependencies. This needs to be documented.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #11 from Per Bothner  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #8)
> It would be great if you can test Kawa by following the steps described in
> /usr/share/doc/openjfx/README.fedora

I did that.  Results:

I was able to build Kawa from source, with the --with-javafx configure flag
(which requires some javafx packages).

I was able to run some simple Kawa-Scheme JavaFX GUI demo scripts.

I was not able to use the -wjavafx option.  That should open a REPL console
(using DomTerm http://domterm.org/) in a fresh WebView:

$ bin/kawa -wjavafx
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javafx/scene/web/WebView
at org.domterm.javafx.WebTerminalApp.createScene(WebTerminalApp.java:68)
at org.domterm.javafx.WebTerminalApp.start(WebTerminalApp.java:154)
at
com.sun.javafx.application.LauncherImpl.lambda$launchApplication1$8(LauncherImpl.java:863)
at
com.sun.javafx.application.PlatformImpl.lambda$runAndWait$7(PlatformImpl.java:326)
at
com.sun.javafx.application.PlatformImpl.lambda$null$5(PlatformImpl.java:295)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at
com.sun.javafx.application.PlatformImpl.lambda$runLater$6(PlatformImpl.java:294)
at
com.sun.glass.ui.InvokeLaterDispatcher$Future.run(InvokeLaterDispatcher.java:95)
at com.sun.glass.ui.gtk.GtkApplication._runLoop(Native Method)
at
com.sun.glass.ui.gtk.GtkApplication.lambda$null$5(GtkApplication.java:139)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: javafx.scene.web.WebView
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:381)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:424)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:331)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:357)
... 11 more
Exception in Application start method
Application stop called

The same bin/kawa -wjavafx command, using the same Kawa build, worked fine
using with Oracle's JDK in the PATH.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Per Bothner from comment #9)
> When I install the openjfx package, I expect it to work.  I do not expect to
> have to look for an obscure README, and have to install some other
> mysterious package.

This README is intended for Fedora packagers and not end users. 

> Whatever happens behind the scenes with magic links and alternates is one
> thing, but I as a user should not have to do anything more complicated than
> "sudo dnf install openjfx".

The openjdk sub-package will provide this functionality, but that package have
not been made.

Please take part in bug 1145303 if you have found a better way to package
openjfx.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #9 from Per Bothner  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #8)

When I install the openjfx package, I expect it to work.  I do not expect to
have to look for an obscure README, and have to install some other mysterious
package.

Whatever happens behind the scenes with magic links and alternates is one
thing, but I as a user should not have to do anything more complicated than
"sudo dnf install openjfx".

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Per Bothner from comment #4)
> I tried running try-fedora-review (see https://pagure.io/FedoraReview) and
> then installed the resulting rpm.
> 
> I then tried building Kawa (https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/) using
> /usr/bin/javac - and that failed to find the jfx classes.
> 
> As a work-around I created in
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.121-11.b14.fc27.x86_64/jre/lib/ext a
> link to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/rt/lib/ext/jfxrt.jar . That allowed the compile
> to succeed.  However, the resulting executable failed to run.  I didn't
> continue, but it's plausible that java couldn't find the right shared
> libraries.
> 
> Since openjdk is installed in a versioned directory (with a nest of
> alternatives links), we have to install openjfx using a compatible layout.

There have been a long discussion at bug 1145303, where the plan is to have two
packages, this one with the binaries and another with the symbolic links that
is part of an openjdk sub-package.

It would be great if you can test Kawa by following the steps described in
/usr/share/doc/openjfx/README.fedora

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Thanks for the feedback, will fix those later the comming week

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Per Bothner from comment #5)
> The created openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-4.b00.fc27.x86_64.rpm only creates files
> in /usr/share/javadoc/openjfx.  Which means the package should be noarch:
> 
> !]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
>  is arched.
>  Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 58439680 bytes in /usr/share
>  openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-4.b00.fc27.x86_64.rpm:58378240
>  See:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines

Other referencies are available here:
https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #5 from Per Bothner  ---
The created openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-4.b00.fc27.x86_64.rpm only creates files in
/usr/share/javadoc/openjfx.  Which means the package should be noarch:

!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
 is arched.
 Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 58439680 bytes in /usr/share
 openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-4.b00.fc27.x86_64.rpm:58378240
 See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Per Bothner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@bothner.com



--- Comment #4 from Per Bothner  ---
I tried running try-fedora-review (see https://pagure.io/FedoraReview) and then
installed the resulting rpm.

I then tried building Kawa (https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/) using
/usr/bin/javac - and that failed to find the jfx classes.

As a work-around I created in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.121-11.b14.fc27.x86_64/jre/lib/ext a link
to /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx/rt/lib/ext/jfxrt.jar . That allowed the compile to
succeed.  However, the resulting executable failed to run.  I didn't continue,
but it's plausible that java couldn't find the right shared libraries.

Since openjdk is installed in a versioned directory (with a nest of
alternatives links), we have to install openjfx using a compatible layout.

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Can you put an explanation in the SPEC FILE why you remove these source codes

rm -rf modules/web/src/*
rm -rf modules/builders/src/main/java/javafx/scene/web
rm -rf modules/media/src/*
rm -rf modules/builders/src/main/java/javafx/scene/media
rm -f  modules/jmx/src/main/java/com/oracle/javafx/jmx/SGMXBeanImpl.java
rm -f  modules/jmx/src/main/java/com/oracle/javafx/jmx/MXExtensionImpl.java

libjpeg's bundle?
rm -rf modules/graphics/src/main/native-iio/libjpeg*

Some patches for other arches are available here:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/openjfx.git/tree/debian/patches/fix-arm32-build.patch
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/openjfx.git/tree/debian/patches/fix-arm64-build.patch

Are not applicable?

Is available a new release:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/8u-dev/rt/rev/abcaf2cb0939
Please, considering upgrade

Please, add in %setup section:
find -name "*.class" -delete
find -name "*.jar" -delete

Suggestion. Maybe you could use, instead of SOURCE2:

cat > gradle.properties << EOF
 CONTENTS ...
EOF

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Updated to only build for x86 and x86_64, since the build will fail on other
platforms. Would be nice to work with upstream to test on other platforms.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/openjfx-8.0.152-4.b00.fc25.src.rpm

-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

mgans...@alice.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1426243 (MediathekView)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426243
[Bug 1426243] Review Request: MediathekView - Searches the online media
library
-- 
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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

mgans...@alice.de  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1421366 (MSearch)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421366
[Bug 1421366] Review Request: MSearch - Mandatory library for MediathekView
-- 
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