https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Jonny Heggheim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
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
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://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Jonny Heggheim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Jonny Heggheim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Michal Vala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
---
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
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
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
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
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
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"
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"
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
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
>
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
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://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
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
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
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
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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:
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://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are
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
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
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
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Mario Torre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neug...@redhat.com
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
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
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
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://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
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://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
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
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,
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://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
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:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Michal Vala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mv...@redhat.com
--
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Michal Vala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mv...@redhat.com
---
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
>
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://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,
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 &&
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)
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jva...@redhat.com
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Per Bothner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@bothner.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
Jonny Heggheim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
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://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
mgans...@alice.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1426243
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673
mgans...@alice.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1421366
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo