[Bug 193896] New: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: ifoox@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_1fc.src.r... Description: Java-Readline is a port of GNU Readline for Java. Or, to be more precise, it is a JNI-wrapper to Readline. It is distributed under the LGPL.
I am submitting this package with several other packages (5 in total), and these are my first packages for Extras, so they may need a sponsor.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
ifoox@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
ifoox@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |193898 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-22 17:56 EST ------- Since Hans has offered to sponsor you once a few of your packages are in shape, I thought I'd take a look at one. I can't take this for review until you've been sponsored but I can make some comments.
The package builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) with the reduced buildroot. The debuginfo package comes up a bit empty due to the usual rpm bugs with java; adding the following to the end of the %build section helps, but you'll want to macroize it to match the rest of the spec:
# Fix debuginfo generation rm -f org test ln -s src/org ln -s src/test
rpmlint has this to say: W: libreadline-java non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: libreadline-java no-soname /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so.0.8.0 W: libreadline-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so W: libreadline-java-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Java
I'm not sure what's happening with the package groups; Development/Libraries would seem appropriate unless someone has officially added the Java subgroup (which wasn't done for the other languages as far as I know.
The unversioned .so file cannot go in the main package; it must go in -devel.
I don't know what's causing the no-soname error; it looks like the upstream Makefile doesn't call GCC with -Wl,-soname,blah, but I'm not sure if this is a blocker in this situation.
About the spec:
The gcj_support thing makes things pretty nasty to read; I wonder if it's really necessary.
Don't set Epoch unless you need it to be a nonzero value.
No need to use an Epoch on the readline Require.
I'm not sure why you need the java_readline and gnu.readline provides.
Don't use Distribution or Vendor.
You need: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
instead of Requires: /sbin/ldconfig.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From ifoox@redhat.com 2006-06-23 17:18 EST ------- Hi Jason, thanks for the comments. I've created a new SRPM and spec here: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_2fc.src.r...
(In reply to comment #1)
Since Hans has offered to sponsor you once a few of your packages are in shape, I thought I'd take a look at one. I can't take this for review until you've been sponsored but I can make some comments.
The package builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) with the reduced buildroot. The debuginfo package comes up a bit empty due to the usual rpm bugs with java; adding the following to the end of the %build section helps, but you'll want to macroize it to match the rest of the spec:
# Fix debuginfo generation rm -f org test ln -s src/org ln -s src/test
Done.
rpmlint has this to say: W: libreadline-java non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: libreadline-java no-soname /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so.0.8.0 W: libreadline-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so W: libreadline-java-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Java
I'm not sure what's happening with the package groups; Development/Libraries would seem appropriate unless someone has officially added the Java subgroup (which wasn't done for the other languages as far as I know.
Done.
The unversioned .so file cannot go in the main package; it must go in -devel.
Can you elaborate on why an unversioned .so cannot go into the main package?
I don't know what's causing the no-soname error; it looks like the upstream Makefile doesn't call GCC with -Wl,-soname,blah, but I'm not sure if this is a blocker in this situation.
I'll look into this next week.
About the spec:
The gcj_support thing makes things pretty nasty to read; I wonder if it's really necessary.
The main reason for that in Java packages is that we can build these packages in RHEL using the same spec file as in Fedora. This really cuts down on maintenance time, and is what we do for all eclipse-* packages, as well as other java packages in Core. I realize that it makes it a bit ugly to look at, but I think it's a neccessary evil.
Don't set Epoch unless you need it to be a nonzero value.
No need to use an Epoch on the readline Require.
All these are fixed.
I'm not sure why you need the java_readline and gnu.readline provides.
I'm not entirely sure why that was there, it was from the JPackage RPM. It seems safe to remove it, so I did.
Don't use Distribution or Vendor.
You need: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
instead of Requires: /sbin/ldconfig.
These are fixed as well.
Thanks again.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-06-23 18:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
Can you elaborate on why an unversioned .so cannot go into the main package?
The simple answer is that the guidelines demand it: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines:
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
The more difficult answer is that I don't completely understand it myself; I believe it has to do with the fact that applications must link against the versioned .so, leaving the unversioned one unneeded for regular operation, along with the question of what the unversioned .so would mean in the face of a future potential compat-libreadlinejava080 package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From ifoox@redhat.com 2006-06-26 14:38 EST ------- Updated files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_3fc.src.r... http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec
I've moved the unversioned .so file into a -devel package, and also changed the Group for the -javadoc package to be Development/Libraries instead of Development/Java. The only remaining problem seems to be the no-soname error, which I'm not sure what to do about.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |tibbs@math.uh.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-07 15:46 EST ------- Somehow this slipped through the cracks, but I'll take it for review now.
The no-soname issue is, as far as I can tell, not a blocker. The jpp stuff in the release, however, is. You should just use a a plain integer release (with the appended dist tag).
The simplest way to do this and interleave cleanly with the jpackage release number is to use, in this case, 0.8.0-11{?%dist} (i.e. drop the "jpp", increment the release by one, and append the dist tag.) Or you can divorce yourself from the jpackage numbering altogether; it's your choice.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-08 00:07 EST ------- Hmm, this builds but will not install on current rawhide:
Error: Missing Dependency: readline = 5.0 is needed by package libreadline-java
Rawhide has readline 5.1; I changed readline_ver to match and it seems to be OK.
Also, there are a few rpmlint warnings; I think it now checks for more than it did when I first looked at this package.
W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _jnidir W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _libdir You need to double any percent symbols that appear in the changelog, lest they be expanded in the final RPM.
E: libreadline-java no-cleaning-of-buildroot You need rpm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
W: libreadline-java mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs It's complaining about a couple of tabs after Group: (use "less -U" to see them). This isn't a blocker.
The debuginfo package is now missing the source again. I'm at a loss as to why this is continually a problem, but it's not really a blocker. Perhaps some day someone will actually understand what's going on here.
You need to include COPYING.LIB as %doc.
Shouldn't the jar file go in /usr/share/java? If not, nothing in your dependency chain owns /usr/lib/java.
* source files match upstream: 501720ddded45eaedf429b7cc356107c libreadline-java-0.8.0-src.tar.gz X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (non-numeric release bits). * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text upstream but not included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). ? debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints X final provides and requires are sane: libreadline-java = 0.8.0-10jpp_3fc = X readline = 5.0 /sbin/ldconfig java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 /bin/sh * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * a shared library is present and ldconfig is called properly. * package is not relocatable. ? owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig, gcj-db) * code, not content. * javadocs split out into separate jackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * unversioned .so in -devel subpackage.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From ifoox@redhat.com 2006-09-08 10:33 EST ------- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-11.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec
(In reply to comment #6)
Hmm, this builds but will not install on current rawhide:
Error: Missing Dependency: readline = 5.0 is needed by package libreadline-java
Rawhide has readline 5.1; I changed readline_ver to match and it seems to be OK.
Fixed.
Also, there are a few rpmlint warnings; I think it now checks for more than it did when I first looked at this package.
W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _jnidir W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _libdir You need to double any percent symbols that appear in the changelog, lest they be expanded in the final RPM.
Fixed.
E: libreadline-java no-cleaning-of-buildroot You need rpm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
Fixed.
W: libreadline-java mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs It's complaining about a couple of tabs after Group: (use "less -U" to see them). This isn't a blocker.
Fixed.
The debuginfo package is now missing the source again. I'm at a loss as to why this is continually a problem, but it's not really a blocker. Perhaps some day someone will actually understand what's going on here.
Hopefully. :-)
You need to include COPYING.LIB as %doc.
Fixed.
Shouldn't the jar file go in /usr/share/java? If not, nothing in your dependency chain owns /usr/lib/java.
You are right, I'm not sure why it was in /usr/lib/java. Fixed.
- source files match upstream: 501720ddded45eaedf429b7cc356107c libreadline-java-0.8.0-src.tar.gz
X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (non-numeric release bits).
- specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
Fixed.
- build root is correct.
- license field matches the actual license.
- license is open source-compatible.
X license text upstream but not included in package.
- latest version is being packaged.
- BuildRequires are proper.
- compiler flags are appropriate.
- %clean is present.
- package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
? debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints X final provides and requires are sane: libreadline-java = 0.8.0-10jpp_3fc = X readline = 5.0 /sbin/ldconfig java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 /bin/sh
- %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
- a shared library is present and ldconfig is called properly.
- package is not relocatable.
? owns the directories it creates.
- doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
- no duplicates in %files.
- file permissions are appropriate.
- scriptlets OK (ldconfig, gcj-db)
- code, not content.
- javadocs split out into separate jackage.
- %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
- no headers.
- no pkgconfig files.
- no libtool .la droppings.
- unversioned .so in -devel subpackage.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-08 17:43 EST ------- OK, the package builds fine in devel with no problems.
rpmlint complains much less (just the two that are OK).
The other issues I had are fixed as well.
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From ifoox@redhat.com 2006-09-08 19:27 EST ------- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-12.src.rpm
I was looking at getting bug #193898 into shape, and saw that I need to switch libreadline-java to use libedit instead of readline due to licensing issues with Jython. I uploaded a new spec and srpm. There are no new rpmlint warnings, and the debuginfo warning has disappeared. Please have a quick look and let me know, if this looks reasonable, and I will build it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2006-09-08 20:55 EST ------- Yes, this still builds fine and looks pretty much the same as the previous version outside of a couple of name changes.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
ifoox@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
------- Additional Comments From ifoox@redhat.com 2006-09-08 21:19 EST ------- Built in development. Closing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-09-09 05:44 EST ------- By the way, it would be great if the readline->libedit change would also make it possible to enable history support in bsh. OTOH, bsh is in core so a buildrequires: libreadline-java wouldn't work, but perhaps it'd be possible to accomplish it without the build dependency some way?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
Ruediger Landmann r.landmann@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |r.landmann@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Ruediger Landmann r.landmann@redhat.com 2010-08-02 00:53:55 EDT --- Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: libreadline-java New Branches: EL-5 Owners: rlandmann InitialCC:
I have discussed this with Alexander Kurtakov, the current package owner, and he is happy for me to maintain this branch.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193896
--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-08-02 12:24:21 EDT --- GIT done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla