https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-2.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wik
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-2.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b40d92c431
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a57742c17b
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-11.0.1.13-11.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-11.0.1.13-11.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-6f43979cd7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
Yo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #48 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9ea9bf0f30
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d8b998b655
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
--- Comment #45 from jiri vanek --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #44 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
Jie Kang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #43 from Jie Kang ---
One tiny nit:
%changelog
* Fri Apr 06 2018 Jiri Vanek - 1:10.0.0.46-9
- subpackage(s) replaced by sub-package(s) and other cosemtic changes
s/cosemtic/cosmetic
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #42 from jiri vanek ---
Long live copypastiing:
srpm:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v09/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-9.fc28.src.rpm
spec: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v09/f28/java-openjdk.spec
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #41 from jiri vanek ---
All should be done now, except the 80chars lines. I truncated/wrapped where I
felt ok. But others are contra productive from all points of view...
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v09/f28/
srpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #40 from Jie Kang ---
Will approve once final spec/srpm is posted.
--
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=1557371
--- Comment #39 from Jie Kang ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #38 from Jie Kang ---
Also one more typo in spec file:
# this is conifg tempalte, thus not config-noreplace
%config %{etcjavadir -- %{?1}}/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template
s/tempalte/template
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #37 from Jie Kang ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #36)
> > ###
> > java-openjdk-src.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The java-openjdk-src
> > subpackage contains the complete OpenJDK 10 class library source code for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #36 from jiri vanek ---
In addition,. I had checked the state of atk wrapper. It is dead. So i will
remove the empty packages in addition...(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #35)
> A few specific rpmlint errors I would like to ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #35 from Jie Kang ---
A few specific rpmlint errors I would like to address:
###
java-openjdk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:10.0.0.46-1
['1:10.0.0.46-7.fc27', '1:10.0.0.46-7']
Will the version be set to back to 1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #34 from jiri vanek ---
I think i have fixed all (*all* now) the issues. How do you feel about:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v07/f28/
srpm:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v07/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #33 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #32)
> I think i have fixedd all the issues. How do you feel about:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v06/f28/
>
> srpm:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/j
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #32 from jiri vanek ---
I think i have fixedd all the issues. How do you feel about:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v06/f28/
srpm:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v06/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-5.fc28.sr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #31 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #27)
>
> W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
>
> This thread [1] has some people's comments on it. I think it's not a blocker
> but I wonder if it can ever be fixed: possibly up
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #30 from jiri vanek ---
...
> > Including also alternatives, as spec contains
> > alternatives --install %{_javadocdir}/java-zip javadoczip lines
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Fix for javadoc-zip sounds okay to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #29 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #24)
> > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>
I ahve checked now even in fina
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #28 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #14)
> OpenJDK contains JARs in source. Most are under openjdk/test/* which I
> believe is acceptable.
>
> ./openjdk/src/utils/IdealGraphVisualizer/branding/modules/org-ne
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #27 from Jie Kang ---
Created attachment 1413241
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1413241&action=edit
rpmlint output from installed packages
I attached rpmlint output run on all installed packages. Note rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #26 from Jie Kang ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #24)
> > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>
> Unluckily, we have it mostly op
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #25 from jiri vanek ---
s/java_javadoc_rpo/java_javadoc_zip_rpo/
--
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=1557371
--- Comment #24 from jiri vanek ---
> Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
Unluckily, we have it mostly opposite. java-openjdk requires
%{name}-headless%{
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #23 from Jie Kang ---
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #22)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20)
> > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug
> >
> > It shoudl no longer exists. It hsould be
> > /usr/l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #22 from Jie Kang ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20)
> > /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug
>
> It shoudl no longer exists. It hsould be
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-slo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #21 from jiri vanek ---
> 'java-openjdk-devel' has provides application() &&
> application(java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-4.fc27.x86_64-jconsole.desktop), these
> look strange to me, is this expected?
What is strange on that? :) We h
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #20 from jiri vanek ---
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug
It shoudl no longer exists. It hsould be
/usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-slowdebug now.
It is created (AFAIK) by
java-openj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek ---
> 1. Are the unversioned .so files listed below okay?
Should be. They are all considered as internal. I failed to tell it to RPM.
If we insists on versioning, I can symlink the.so files with .so.MAJORJDKV
n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #18 from jiri vanek ---
> is debuginfo(build-id) okay? Looks strange.
is perfectly ok. Thats something what rpm do since f27 - each subpackage have
those ids, and they are stored as you see it i was buffled by it when I saw it
f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #17 from Jie Kang ---
Also for provides:
Provides
java-openjdk-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
java-openjdk-debuginfo
java-openjdk-debuginfo(x86-64)
is debuginfo(build-id) okay? Looks strange.
--
You are re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #16 from Jie Kang ---
Few things are now "Manual review needed".
Questions:
1. Are the unversioned .so files listed below okay?
2. Which package creates
'/usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug'? I'd like to see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #15 from jiri vanek ---
Wou. I have never noticed those two.
I would say that yes, the ons in test are aceptable, otherwise it will not be
possibel to run the tests from src.rpm.
On contrary, the ones in utils seems just wrong. I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #14 from Jie Kang ---
OpenJDK contains JARs in source. Most are under openjdk/test/* which I believe
is acceptable.
./openjdk/src/utils/IdealGraphVisualizer/branding/modules/org-netbeans-core-windows.jar
./openjdk/src/utils/IdealG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek ---
Updated with typos and other minor nits fixed:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v05/f28/
Notes
- missing are comments which you requested (will be done)
- the debug subpackages are renamed s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek ---
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Unluckily, here is nothing i can do about this. The javadoc and jaavdoc zip
were noarch up to jdk8. Since jd9 ther
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #11 from Jie Kang ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #10 from Jie Kang ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #6)
> [] Package must own all directories that it creates.
>will be fixed. Only /usr/lib/jvm should not be owned. it is owned by
> japackage tools. Also I think it is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #9 from jiri vanek ---
> > I see hundreds of "java-openjdk.spec: E: specfile-error error: Too many
> > levels of recursion in macro expansion. It is likely caused by recursive
> > macro declaration."
...
> > The warning can be igno
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #8 from jiri vanek ---
> [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
> This is major thing, and cant be fixed. The Usage of %global on top of
> %define is wrongly interpreted in fedora. If you change any of highligh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #7 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5)
> Created attachment 1411281 [details]
> check from another user
You had nicely nearly no-intersection :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #6 from jiri vanek ---
[] Package must own all directories that it creates.
will be fixed. Only /usr/lib/jvm should not be owned. it is owned by
japackage tools. Also I think it is mentioned somewher ein guidelines, but have
no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #5 from jiri vanek ---
Created attachment 1411281
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1411281&action=edit
check from another user
--
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=1557371
--- Comment #4 from Jie Kang ---
Package Review
==
SPEC: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v04/f28/java-openjdk.spec
SRPM:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v04/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc28.src.rpm
Lege
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #3 from jiri vanek ---
Released:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2018-March/000247.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this pro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
Jie Kang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #1)
> Created attachment 1409888 [details]
> Diff of spelling/grammar/consistency changes to spec
>
> I've attached a diff making spelling/grammar/consistency (spaces, endi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
--- Comment #1 from Jie Kang ---
Created attachment 1409888
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1409888&action=edit
Diff of spelling/grammar/consistency changes to spec
I've attached a diff making spelling/grammar/consistency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||ahug...@redhat.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ahug...@redhat.com
Fixed In Version|ahug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371
jiri vanek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jk...@redhat.com
--
You are receiving t
64 matches
Mail list logo
