[Bug 640205] New: Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205
Summary: Review Request: visualvm - Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jvanek@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
SRPM URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2513496&name=visualvm-...
Description: VisualVM is a visual tool integrating several command-line JDK tools and lightweight profiling capabilities. Designed for both production and development time use, it further enhances the capability of monitoring and performance analysis for the Java SE platform.
This tool have been extracted from openJDK, and is crucial for next release of openJDK for fedora.
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=640205
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=640205
--- Comment #1 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-05 04:45:33 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: visualvm New Branches: f14 f15 Owners: jvanek dbhole InitialCC: jvanek dbhole
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=640205
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-10-05 09:37:24 EDT --- This is a bit confusing. You've submitted a change request, but the package does not exist so there's nothing to change. It looks like this is a plain review ticket, but it hasn't been approved or even reviewed so you can't be submitting a request to create the git tree yet.
So what's actually going on here, and what do you need from the SCM admins?
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=640205
--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-10-05 09:39:45 EDT --- Oh, and just FYI, f15 hasn't branched yet; it's a few months too early to request f15 branches.
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=640205
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-05 09:42:10 EDT --- fedora‑cvs ? flag removed. Sorry for being to fast.
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=640205
Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ahughes@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-10-05 09:45:07 EDT --- The package needs approving to resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631360
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=640205
Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |631360
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=640205
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sochotni@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sochotni@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-05 14:35:08 EDT --- I'll have a look at it
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=640205
--- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-06 05:18:28 EDT --- Before even starting official review... visualvm.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf visualvm.x86_64: W: no-documentation visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-osgi.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-compat.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-spi-actions.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-output2.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-core-kit.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-favorites.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-api-visual.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-junit4.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-netigso.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-felix.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-execution.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-jdesktop-layout.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-options.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-openide-util-enumerations.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-libs-jsr223.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-core-osgi.xml_hidden visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm/platform /usr/share/netbeans/platform12 visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources visualvm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled visualvm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 19 errors, 13 warnings.
Need I comment on this? Please run rpmlint before putting packages for review. If there are good reasons for some of these things, explain...otherwise please fix them before I continue.
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=640205
--- Comment #8 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-07 08:37:06 EDT --- Be sure I'm runing rpmlint ;) Most of this is caused by upstream, And I can do nearly nothing with it.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2519784&name=visualvm-...
here is bugfix and my comments (going out of upstream): visualvm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception -This is how upstream has chosen to License it, and it is a widely known license type.
visualvm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch -patch is applied, because of it's nature, in build. And IS applied
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -Upstream maintains conf files within %{_libdir}/visualvm/etc/ .. thereis nothing I can change about it
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-documentation -Upstream does not provide any.
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Added by upstream build.
visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm /platform/usr/share/netbeans/platform12 -visualvm depends on netbeans and the above target will exist when netbeans is installed. (tested by installation)
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm -Binary launches a gui.
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm -Created by upstream -- not much I can change.
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 12 warnings.
visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -FIXED
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources -FIXED (by upstream and in spec)
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=640205
--- Comment #9 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-07 08:39:06 EDT --- GPLv2 + Classpath Exception is good license (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses)
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=640205
--- Comment #10 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-07 09:45:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
Be sure I'm runing rpmlint ;) Most of this is caused by upstream, And I can do nearly nothing with it.
first priority: packaging guidelines second priority: making upstream happy
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2519784&name=visualvm-...
Please next time provide separate link to spec file so it can be accessed directly without digging it up from srpm
here is bugfix and my comments (going out of upstream): visualvm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception -This is how upstream has chosen to License it, and it is a widely known license type.
This license name is invalid. This has nothing to do with upstream. You are supposed to use "Short name" column from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses for license tag.
visualvm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch -patch is applied, because of it's nature, in build. And IS applied
Add comment to the spec file explaining this.
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -Upstream maintains conf files within %{_libdir}/visualvm/etc/ .. thereis nothing I can change about it
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-documentation -Upstream does not provide any.
How about COPYING file?
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Added by upstream build.
Are they really needed? "Upstream may rely on them for something" is not the answer. If you can't figure out if these files are really needed, ask upstream. If there is no other way, remove these empty files and re-create them in post (remove in postun). Though I very much doubt it would harm anything if they were missing.
visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm /platform/usr/share/netbeans/platform12 -visualvm depends on netbeans and the above target will exist when netbeans is installed. (tested by installation)
No problem here
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm -Binary launches a gui.
no problem
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm -Created by upstream -- not much I can change.
Really? You are using configure instead of %configure macro and you are not setting sysconfdir. I am guessing that's why etc dir ends up in /usr
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 12 warnings.
visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -FIXED
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources -FIXED (by upstream and in spec)
I'll start official review, but you'll have to fix those issues one way or the other.
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=640205
--- Comment #11 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-07 10:35:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Added by upstream build.
Are they really needed? "Upstream may rely on them for something" is not the answer. If you can't figure out if these files are really needed, ask upstream. If there is no other way, remove these empty files and re-create them in post (remove in postun). Though I very much doubt it would harm anything if they were missing.
.lastModified files should be created in %post (removed in %postun). See http://bits.netbeans.org/dev/javadoc/org-netbeans-bootstrap/overview-summary...
As for the other zero-length files. I don't know their function, but unless we find a reason for them to stay they should be removed
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=640205
--- Comment #12 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-07 10:37:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm -Created by upstream -- not much I can change.
Really? You are using configure instead of %configure macro and you are not setting sysconfdir. I am guessing that's why etc dir ends up in /usr
Actually this is caused by passing --prefix=%{_prefix}/jvm/java-openjdk-jvisualvm to configure. But this still means it's nothing to do with upstream. You chose that directory
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=640205
Tomas Hurka tomas.hurka@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tomas.hurka@googlemail.com
--- Comment #13 from Tomas Hurka tomas.hurka@googlemail.com 2010-10-08 08:45:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
Are they really needed?
Yes, the zero-length files in visualvm/config/Modules/* are needed.
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=640205
--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-08 09:49:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
skip
here is bugfix and my comments (going out of upstream): visualvm.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception -This is how upstream has chosen to License it, and it is a widely known license type.
This license name is invalid. This has nothing to do with upstream. You are supposed to use "Short name" column from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses for license tag.
fixed
visualvm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch -patch is applied, because of it's nature, in build. And IS applied
Add comment to the spec file explaining this.
fixed
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -Upstream maintains conf files within %{_libdir}/visualvm/etc/ .. thereis nothing I can change about it
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-documentation -Upstream does not provide any.
fixed
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Added by upstream build.
Are they really needed? "Upstream may rely on them for something" is not the answer. If you can't figure out if these files are really needed, ask upstream. If there is no other way, remove these empty files and re-create them in post (remove in postun). Though I very much doubt it would harm anything if they were missing.
fixed - upstream rely on them, but dont'really on wether there is first empty line in them.
visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm /platform/usr/share/netbeans/platform12 -visualvm depends on netbeans and the above target will exist when netbeans is installed. (tested by installation)
No problem here
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm -Binary launches a gui.
no problem
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm -Created by upstream -- not much I can change.
Really? You are using configure instead of %configure macro and you are not setting sysconfdir. I am guessing that's why etc dir ends up in /usr
default prefix is /usr
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 + Classpath Exception 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 12 warnings.
visualvm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -FIXED
visualvm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources -FIXED (by upstream and in spec)
I'll start official review, but you'll have to fix those issues one way or the other.
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/visualvm/config/Modules/org-netbeans-modules-options-keymap.xml_hidden ... visualvm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Upstream generates them and it is best not to delete them as upstream may rely on them for something.
visualvm.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/visualvm/profiler/.lastModified -Added by upstream build.
Are they really needed? "Upstream may rely on them for something" is not the answer. If you can't figure out if these files are really needed, ask upstream. If there is no other way, remove these empty files and re-create them in post (remove in postun). Though I very much doubt it would harm anything if they were missing.
.lastModified files should be created in %post (removed in %postun). See http://bits.netbeans.org/dev/javadoc/org-netbeans-bootstrap/overview-summary...
fixed
Current status:
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf -installed by upstream. Stil no clue how to fix :(
visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm/platform /usr/share/netbeans/platform12 visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm - default prefix is /usr 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
visualvm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled visualvm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. visualvm.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ^explained in specfile comment^
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=640205
--- Comment #15 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-08 09:59:24 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2522123&name=visualvm-... in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2522122
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=640205
--- Comment #16 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-10-08 10:11:52 EDT --- Sorry - bad one
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2522168&name=visualvm-... in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2522167 for http://scratch.englab.brq.redhat.com/visualvm.spec
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=640205
--- Comment #18 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-08 11:50:17 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: visualvm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled OK
visualvm.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: visualvm-debuginfo.patch explained
visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters visualvm.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf
so once again...Why didn't you use --sysconfdir switch to configure?
visualvm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/visualvm/platform /usr/share/netbeans/platform12
explained
visualvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jvisualvm visualvm.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr jvm I'll get to this further down
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) It's actually %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) So while you're making other changes please change this as well
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 with exceptions [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 3dac8c562bc847d2782bdc192826271f MD5SUM upstream package: 3dac8c562bc847d2782bdc192826271f
netbeans-profiler: aeca7cbd0f1dfb30858d80fa1e150820 visualvm_13: f1a28e24451982114be6590ceddeae12
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [!] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. /usr/lib[64]/visualvm directory doesn't seem to be provided by any other package and this one doesn't include it either
[!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. files /usr/jvm/java-openjdk-jvisualvm/bin/jvisualvm and /usr/bin/jvisualvm are the same
plus file /usr/jvm/java-openjdk-jvisualvm/share/visualvm.desktop is in wrong place (you can just delete it since you have desktop file in right place as well)
[x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!] Package uses %global not %define replace your %define-s with %global [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building
there is file nbbuild/sierra/build.jar in netbeans-profiler-visualvm_release69.tar.gz
File includes *java file so it should be possible to re-create it should it be necessary. Since the upstream tarball contains binary file you'll have to unpack & clean & repack prior to building visualvm (or create script to do it and include modified version in SourceX:)
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
=== Other suggestions === [-] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
=== Issues === 1. etc directory placement 2. ownership of /usr/lib[64]/visualvm directory 3. duplicate files in /usr/jvm (and existence of this directory) 4. define -> global macro 5. bundled build.jar inside netbeans tar.gz
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=640205
--- Comment #19 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-10-08 11:55:10 EDT --- Almost forgot: 6. You are not deleting .lastModified in postun 7. sed should be used in %prep, worst case %build section not %install 8. why are you using --prefix=%{_prefix}/jvm/java-openjdk-jvisualvm when you copy from that directory to /usr ?
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=640205
--- Comment #20 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-01 09:19:35 EDT --- http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3-3.fc14.src.rpm http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm.spec
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=640205
--- Comment #21 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-11-01 11:00:38 EDT --- The spec/srpm is mostly good now but the app itself doesn't work. It fails with: $ /usr/bin/jvisualvm /bin/bash: /platform*/lib/nbexec: No such file or directory
You will need to fix this before I continue the review. Please don't put things on review when you know they don't work. It doesn't look nice...
Apart from that the spec file looks pretty good. but since the configure script is apparently ignoring --sysconfdir there is no reason to pass it there. You should make a comment when you are fixing paths that will state why you have to do it. Every non-standard thing should be explained. Then you have comments like this in file section:
#dir _libdir/visualvm/etc #config(noreplace) _libdir/visualvm/etc/visualvm.conf #config(noreplace) _libdir/visualvm/etc/visualvm.clusters
They are useless and just clutter the spec file. If I saw this in an old spec file..no problem. But there is no reason to have this in brand new specs. It's ugly and useless.
You are moving config files to /etc in install which is OK, but you should check if the application will actually use them. If not-> symlinks to original location.
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=640205
--- Comment #22 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-02 03:44:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21)
You are moving config files to /etc in install which is OK, but you should check if the application will actually use them. If not-> symlinks to original location.
This is verified. Application is looking for them in /etc
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=640205
Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|631360 |
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=640205
--- Comment #23 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-16 03:04:34 EST --- http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3.4.tar.gz http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm.spec
Added symlinks to correct locations to make it work.
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=640205
--- Comment #24 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-19 05:31:02 EST --- http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3.5.tar.gz http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm.spec
Damn. In 1.3.4 was missing slash in symlink causing non-run ability.
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=640205
--- Comment #25 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-23 07:51:50 EST --- http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm.spec http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3-8.fc14.src.rpm http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3.8.tar.gz
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=640205
--- Comment #26 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-24 03:48:51 EST --- updated license.
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=640205
--- Comment #27 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-24 04:08:28 EST --- http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3-9.fc14.src.rpm http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3.9.tar.gz http://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/visualvm-1.3-9.fc14.src.rpm
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=640205
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-11-24 08:50:03 EST --- Sooo...ta-da. The package is good enough now so that I can approve it without a problem.
Two notes: * Add description why the license tag is the way it is (see [1]) * In the meantime version 1.3.1 of visualvm was released. I don't expect big changes, so should be easy to update. Please do so before doing the final push/build.
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-November/001465.html
package is APPROVED.
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=640205
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #29 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-24 09:34:29 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: visualvm Short Description: Lightweight profiler that integrates many command-line JDK tools Owners: jvanek dbhole Branches: f13 f14 f15 InitialCC: jvanek dbhole
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=640205
--- Comment #30 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-11-24 11:42:22 EST --- Can I please have a list of what needs changing in the VisualVM harness?
To update to 1.3.1 will mean a new VisualVM harness release anyway, so may as well fix everything for a 1.1 release.
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=640205
--- Comment #31 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-11-24 12:03:35 EST --- Paths where installation occurs are completely non-standard.
From quick look/memory refresh:
* ignoring of --sysconfdir switch and installing config files to %{_libdir}/visualvm/etc/ * installing non-standard subdirectories into --prefix directory. I remember there was "platform" directory and 2 others (can't remember names). These should be placed into standard subdirectories. Either share or lib or whatever is appropriate for that data.
That is probably all of it, but since there will be changes in the build process it will have to be verified.
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=640205
Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #32 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-11-24 14:33:29 EST --- Thanks. I'll try and take a look at these issues next week.
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=640205
--- Comment #33 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-11-24 15:30:51 EST --- It is way too early to request f15 branches.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=640205
--- Comment #34 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-11-24 15:46:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #32)
Thanks. I'll try and take a look at these issues next week.
You are not supposed to touch review flag unless you're the reviewer. By setting it back to ? you have formally invalidated Stanislav's review and made it look like Jason has created git repo for unapproved package.
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=640205
--- Comment #35 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-11-24 16:55:46 EST --- I haven't touched any flags; just responded to the bug.
Besides, there is still work to be done before this can go into Fedora as Stanislav request a rebase on 1.3.1 which will mean a new upstream release.
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=640205
--- Comment #36 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-11-24 17:04:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #35)
I haven't touched any flags; just responded to the bug.
Just look at the Flags: ahughes: fedora‑review ?
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=640205
--- Comment #37 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-11-24 18:15:53 EST --- I didn't say it wasn't there. I said I didn't set it, which I didn't. I didn't even know such a flag existed. It must be some automated result of posting on the bug.
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=640205
--- Comment #38 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-11-24 18:39:27 EST --- We do occasionally see some bizarre changes to tickets when people post to them. Usually it's the component which changes (and generally to OxFFFF, the first component in the list) but I wouldn't be surprised if the flags occasionally changed randomly as well.
Stanislav, would you be so kind as to set it back to '+'?
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=640205
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #39 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-11-25 02:43:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #38)
Stanislav, would you be so kind as to set it back to '+'?
Done.
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=640205
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=640205
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-25 07:09:37 EST --- visualvm-1.3-9.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3-9.fc14
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=640205
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-25 20:05:55 EST --- visualvm-1.3-9.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update visualvm'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3-9.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #42 from Andrew John Hughes ahughes@redhat.com 2010-11-26 09:34:08 EST --- Jason, thanks for a more reasoned response.
Stanislav, should we create a new bug to track the update to 1.3.1?
Jiri, nothing should be being pushed yet!
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=640205
--- Comment #43 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2010-11-26 09:43:56 EST --- Yes. When new visualvm package will be prepared for going out, then I will ask for new review.
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=640205
--- Comment #44 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2010-11-26 10:28:01 EST --- I guess I should have known this is gonna happen...the package as it is can go into Fedora so as far as I am concerned I am done here. I probably should have waited with "+" until update to 1.3.1.
There is no "package review" for updates so no new review is going to happen. If the maintainer decides he wants to push reviewed version into F-14, that's up to him, he hasn't done anything against the rules/guidelines.
You can create a bug to track progress on update to 1.3.1, but it will have nothing to do with this review. I (reviewer) am there to verify package is sane before entering fedora repositories, reviewers can't watch updates for all reviewed packages (I'd be watching ~50 additional packages in past 9 months if that was the case).
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=640205
Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@matbooth.co.uk
--- Comment #45 from Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk 2010-12-16 12:26:48 EST --- Hi,
As I noted in the Bodhi update [1] the .desktop file is wrong, VisualVM cannot be launched from the Applications menu.
Just thought I'd mention it here, too.
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3-9.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #46 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2011-01-05 05:03:44 EST --- Version with several minor fixes (thanx Booth and others!) was pushed to test. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2701892 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3-10.fc14
I have no intensions to push it to stable, because 1.3.2 harness is on the way.
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=640205
--- Comment #47 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2011-01-06 08:59:17 EST --- package updated to visualvm 1.3.1, harness 1.1 and profiler 6.9.1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-1.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-01-12 17:36:27 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-3.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-01-18 05:08:07 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.4.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-01 05:13:36 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.5.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.5.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-02 12:07:50 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.6.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-02-13 03:54:32 EST --- visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=640205
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |visualvm-1.3.1-1.1.6.fc14 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-02-13 03:54:42
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=640205
--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-03-14 07:22:39 EDT --- visualvm-1.3.2-1.2.7.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/visualvm-1.3.2-1.2.7.fc14
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=640205
--- Comment #54 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com 2011-04-18 06:47:53 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: visualvm New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: jvanek dbhole
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla