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

2017-06-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED

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

2017-06-17 Thread 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

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

2017-06-09 Thread 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

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

2017-06-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

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

2017-06-08 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

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

2017-06-08 Thread 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

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

2017-06-04 Thread 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

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

2017-06-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ON_QA

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Michal Vala changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ ---

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-02 Thread 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

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

2017-06-01 Thread 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"

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

2017-06-01 Thread 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"

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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 >

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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 > >

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-31 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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]

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

2017-05-31 Thread 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

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

2017-05-30 Thread 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

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

2017-05-30 Thread 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

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

2017-05-30 Thread 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

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

2017-05-30 Thread 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

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

2017-05-30 Thread 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

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

2017-05-29 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-29 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-29 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are

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

2017-05-29 Thread 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

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

2017-05-29 Thread 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

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

2017-05-28 Thread 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

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

2017-05-27 Thread 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

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

2017-05-25 Thread 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

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

2017-05-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Mario Torre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neug...@redhat.com

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

2017-05-20 Thread 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

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

2017-05-19 Thread 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

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

2017-05-19 Thread 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

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

2017-05-19 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-19 Thread 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

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

2017-05-18 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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,

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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

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

2017-05-16 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-16 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Michal Vala changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mv...@redhat.com --

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

2017-05-15 Thread 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

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

2017-05-15 Thread 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

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

2017-05-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Michal Vala changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mv...@redhat.com ---

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

2017-05-12 Thread 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,

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

2017-05-12 Thread 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

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

2017-05-12 Thread 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

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

2017-05-10 Thread 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

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

2017-05-09 Thread 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.

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

2017-05-09 Thread 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 >

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

2017-05-08 Thread 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:

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

2017-05-04 Thread 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,

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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 &&

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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) >

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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

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

2017-05-03 Thread 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

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

2017-05-02 Thread 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

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

2017-05-02 Thread 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

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

2017-05-02 Thread 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?

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

2017-05-02 Thread 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

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

2017-05-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jva...@redhat.com

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

2017-04-16 Thread 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

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

2017-04-10 Thread 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

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

2017-04-10 Thread 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

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

2017-04-09 Thread 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

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

2017-04-09 Thread 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

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

2017-04-09 Thread 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

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

2017-04-09 Thread 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

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

2017-04-08 Thread 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

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

2017-04-08 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Per Bothner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@bothner.com ---

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

2017-04-06 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it

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

2017-04-06 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)

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

2017-04-05 Thread 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:

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

2017-04-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1426243

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

2017-04-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 mgans...@alice.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1421366

  1   2   >