https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352963 jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx |needinfo?(jandrlik@redhat.c |) |om) |needinfo?(jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx | |) | |needinfo?(jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx | |) | --- Comment #7 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [!]: 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. java-25-openjdk-25.0.0.0.13-0.1.ea.fc43.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib/jvm/java-25-openjdk/lib/libawt_xawt.so ... java-25-openjdk-slowdebug-25.0.0.0.13-0.1.ea.fc43.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib/jvm/java-25-openjdk-slowdebug/lib/libsplashscreen.so [jv] This is ok. They are no not on LD_PATH and are JDK private. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/jvm/java-25-openjdk/lib/static/linux- amd64/glibc/server, /usr/lib/jvm/java-25-openjdk- slowdebug/lib/static/linux-amd64/glibc/server, /usr/lib/jvm/java-25-openjdk-fastdebug/lib/static/linux- amd64/glibc/server Reviewer note: look below. [jv] This tis looks indeed wrong. Will elaborate. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, .... /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps Reviewer note: this looks wrong. [jv] This tis looks indeed wrong. Will elaborate. [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/.java(java-latest- ... devel, java-latest-openjdk-devel, java-latest-openjdk-devel-fastdebug, glib2-devel) Reviewer note: I assume this one is ok. [jv] tbh, not sure Looks good to me too, but maybe it is just lack of specifick nowledge. [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [jv] I'm not aware of any fonts inside, if they are here, they are not published and are jdk internal only [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in java-25-openjdk-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-headless , java-25-openjdk-headless-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-headless-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-devel , java-25-openjdk-devel-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-devel-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-static-libs , java-25-openjdk-static-libs-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-static-libs-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-jmods , java-25-openjdk-jmods-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-jmods-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-demo , java-25-openjdk-demo-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-demo-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-src , java-25-openjdk-src-slowdebug , java-25-openjdk-src-fastdebug , java-25-openjdk-javadoc-zip [jv] All subpakcages are correctly requiring is variant wehre applicable. In additional base of everything is -headless subpackage. demo and javadocs and soources can indeed be instaleld spearately. This is ok [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}, %define __brp_strip_static_archive %{nil}, %define is_release_build() ... [jv] This is ok. Those prametrised macros do nto work as expected when moved to global. Reviewer note: ## FIXME FIXME FIXME %define debug_package %{nil} ## FIXME FIXME FIXME the above looks wrong. [jv] This is indeed wrong. However fix is currentlyt not known. It popped up when I updated to jdk23->jdk24, and remians present in jdk25. However it can now be called feature, as it is the only reason why jlink will work. So my goal is to fix jlink, which musst be fixed in portbales first. Once it is done, I will make jlink work also from rpms, and once all this is fixed, I willr eturn to debuginfo, which must be fixed with jmodless-jlink in mind. It may happen teat %define debug_package will be the only solution for that [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 734238720 bytes in /usr/share java-25-openjdk-javadoc-25.0.0.0.13-0.1.ea.fc43.x86_64.rpm:337930240, java-25-openjdk-javadoc- zip-25.0.0.0.13-0.1.ea.fc43.x86_64.rpm:395110400 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [jv] that is javadoc, thats ok. It is really big, and really per-platform different. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [jv] I saw that. It seems itt is related only to comments and autochangelog. So 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352963 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202352963%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
