[Bug 433070] New: Review Request: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
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/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
Summary: Review Request: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: langel@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-icedtea/java-1.6.0-icedtea.spec SRPM URL: http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-icedtea/java-1.6.0-icedtea-1.6.0.0...
Description: The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
langel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fitzsim@redhat.com
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
langel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From notting@redhat.com 2008-02-15 17:55 EST ------- Is there a reason we're going to be shipping two versions?
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From mwielaard@redhat.com 2008-02-16 06:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
Is there a reason we're going to be shipping two versions?
From the java-1.7.0-icedtea README:
Java compatibility ------------------
IcedTea is derived from OpenJDK, Sun's open-source implementation of the Java SE platform. At this time the build from which IcedTea was constructed corresponds to an early build of JDK 7. When JDK 7 is complete it will implement the Java SE 7 Platform Specification. Work on that specification is underway, but far from final. Any APIs in the JDK 7 implementation, whether new or old, are therefore subject to minor adjustments, major revisions, or even outright removal between now and the time that the Java SE 7 Platform Specification is finalized. Please take these facts into account before depending upon IcedTea.
java-1.6.0-icedtea will be the "stable" version that is as close as possible to standard 1.6 compatibility as possible.
---
From a compatibility point of view the 1.6.0 version should be shipped as
default. The reason IcedTea started with 1.7.0 was because that was the code that was available. Getting it liberated completely and bootstrapping with the free gnu java toolchain was priority one. Now that that work is stabilizing and the new work done upstream on openjdk6, we can concentrate on this more standards compatible version.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-02-18 10:29 EST ------- I have updated the srpm. The link is still the same.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2008-02-18 11:01 EST ------- When updating the package you should bump the release and add a changelog entry so that it is known what was changed.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-02-18 11:05 EST ------- i have only been updated the sources, so I didn't see a need. I will in the future.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-03-04 00:04 EST ------- Updated sources to b06 http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-icedtea/java-1.6.0-icedtea-1.6.0.0... http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-icedtea/java-1.6.0-icedtea.spec
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
langel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-03-04 16:37 EST ------- Changing package name to java-1.6.0-openjdk
New srpm and spec file:
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 436022 ***
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
fitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE |
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-04 16:56 EST ------- Reopening and changing summary to maintain CC list and discussion.
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: java-1.6.0-icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 runtime environment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-04 16:59 EST ------- *** Bug 436022 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
fitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: java-1.6.0- |Review Request: java-1.6.0- |icedtea - The IcedTea 1.6.0 |openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 |runtime environment. |runtime environment
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-04 17:02 EST ------- The intention is that java-1.6.0-openjdk will replace java-1.7.0-icedtea in Fedora 9. java-1.7.0-icedtea represents a pre-alpha snapshot of Sun's OpenJDK 7 development branch, whereas java-1.6.0-openjdk will track the stable OpenJDK 6 branch. OpenJDK 7 final isn't scheduled for release until sometime in 2009, so it's far out, even for Fedora.
We'd prefer not to ship both because we want to limit confusion among Fedora users (which should they use?) and we don't want to needlessly add size to the distribution.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-03-04 17:23 EST ------- Links to appropriate srpm and spec file (as noted on Bug #436022) http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-openjdk/java-1.6.0-openjdk.spec http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-openjdk/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0...
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-07 11:58 EST ------- rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc9.src.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:60: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
Fixing this is hard. It involves making jpackage-utils multilib compatible. Work is progressing toward that goal but it is blocked on this rpm bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=340391
Work is also proceeding on fixing that bug, but slowly.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:299: E: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:314: E: configure-without-libdir-spec java-1.6.0-openjdk.src:321: E: configure-without-libdir-spec
None of these configured codebases -- IcedTea, GNOME Java Access Bridge, Mauve -- is installed. There may be no harm in adding --libdir=%{_libdir} to satisfy rpmlint though.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: java-1.6.0-openjdk-win32.patch java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: java-1.6.0-openjdk-jhat.patch
Fix.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: strange-permission generate-fedora-zip.sh 0775
Fix.
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/zi/Australia 02755 ...
Fix and add FIXME comment saying we need to fix this upstream.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README
Fix and add FIXME comment saying we need to fix this upstream.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:1.6.0.0-.1.b06 1:1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8
Fix.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext
I checked Rawhide: it's safe to remove this line and the explanatory comment:
Provides: jdbc-stdext = %{epoch}:%{version}
since Fedora packages refer to either the versionless jdbc-stdext provides or the JDBC API version. But can you add the leading 0: to the 3.0 provides?
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/bin/keytool ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] ...
rpmlint bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436486
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/security/cacerts ...
These should probably eventually be replaced by symlinks somewhere into /etc, but we'll need to discuss this with OpenJDK upstream developers. Can you add a FIXME comment in the %files section saying so?
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar ...
rpmlint bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436487
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README
Fix.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/include 02755 ...
Fix.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.6.0-openjdk java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0
Fine for now, since devel package requires base package which provides the fully-versioned directory. In the future we may want to eliminate these fully-versioned directories. They're slightly irritating because rpmdiff can't handle them properly, and also because they're simply redundant.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/bin/jsadebugd ['$ORIGIN/../lib/i386/jli', '$ORIGIN/../jre/lib/i386/jli'] ...
rpmlint bug, see above.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/lib/tools.jar
rpmlint bug, see above.
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti 02755 ...
Fix.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo.i386: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/demo/jvmti/mtrace/lib/libmtrace.so libmtrace.so ...
These are dlopend, so their SONAMEs are fine. rpmlint should probably recognize that these are not in standard library location and assume they're dlopened. Here's the bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436497
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/java-1.6.0-openjdk/api/java/util/jar 02755 ...
Fix.
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk-src.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
This error probably shouldn't apply to subpackages:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436500
$ rpmlint -i /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-debuginfo-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
Lots of errors. I'll assume that the debuginfo subpackage isn't expected to be rpmlint-clean.
MUST
- package naming
The package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is named according to JPackage naming conventions
- spec file name matches base package name
- package follows Packaging Guidelines
- acceptable license
- license field matches actual license
- license file marked as %doc in base package
- American English
- spec file is legible
- didn't check md5sum
The tarball is a snapshot from the IcedTea Mercurial repository. It is not released so I can't check the md5sum.
- package builds on x86
- package should build on all architectures (IcedTea 7 does)
- all build requirements listed
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- not relocatable
- owns all directories
I believe so. To be clear about this though, I'd prefer not to use the -f option to the base and demo files sections, and instead list all files explicitly. This is more verbose but less error prone. This is not a blocker for acceptance of this package though -- we can do this in a subsequent Rawhide update.
- check no duplicate files
I'm seeing these warnings:
*** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked: /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/bin/keytool and /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/bin/keytool
Can you add a FIXME comment to look into hard-linking these instead? (symlinking won't work since relative directories are calculated based on these tools' fully-expanded locations.)
- correct permissions
No. See rpmlint output.
- clean section
- consistent macro use
- package contains code
- javadoc subpackage
- runtime doesn't need docs
- header files in -devel package
The java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel subpackage isn't a typical Fedora devel package. Instead "-devel" here means "SDK tools".
- no static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no suffixed libraries
- devel subpackage requires base
- no libtool archives
- no desktop files
- no dual directory ownership
- buildroot removed at start of %install
- filenames valid UTF-8
SHOULD
- license text included
- no summary translations
- didn't try building in mock
- didn't try building on non-x86 architectures
- basic functionality works
Yes. "Hello World" compiles and runs
- sane scriptlets
Lots of use of alternatives, but warranted.
- subpackages require base package
All subpackages except the javadoc subpackage require the base package.
- no pkgconfig file
- owns its own directories
Yes. Requires jpackage-utils for lower-level directories.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2008-03-07 16:39 EST ------- rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc9.src.rpm java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: java-1.6.0-openjdk-win32.patch java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: java-1.6.0-openjdk-jhat.patch
Patches are applied, but not using the method expected %patch1.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.src: W: strange-permission generate-fedora-zip.sh 0775
Fixed.
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/zi/Australia 02755 ... I don't see this problem.
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README
Fixed
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:1.6.0.0-.1.b06 1:1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8
Fixed
java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: useless-explicit-provides jdbc-stdext
Fixed java-1.6.0-openjdk.i386: E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/lib/security/cacerts ...
These should probably eventually be replaced by symlinks somewhere into /etc, but we'll need to discuss this with OpenJDK upstream developers. Can you add a FIXME comment in the %files section saying so?
Done.
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0/THIRD_PARTY_README
Fixed
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/include 02755 ...
Don't see these problems.
$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-0.1.b06.fc8.i386.rpm
java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/java-1.6.0-openjdk/api/java/util/jar 02755 ...
Don't see this.
MUST
- check no duplicate files
I'm seeing these warnings:
*** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked: /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/bin/keytool and /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0/jre/bin/keytool
I added a comment about this.
srpm and spec file updated: http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-openjdk/java-1.6.0-openjdk.spec http://langel.fedorapeople.org/java-1.6.0-openjdk/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0...
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
fitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |fedora_requires_release_note | |?, fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-07 17:41 EST ------- The permissions differences are strange. We'll have to run rpmlint on the packages produced by koji.
When you commit this can you add another FIXME comment above the iconv lines, saying that we need to fix this upstream?
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-07 17:57 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: java-1.6.0-openjdk Short Description: OpenJDK 6 Owners: fitzsim,langel Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-03-08 14:28 EST ------- Just a few comments/issues I see:
- Why the Epoch: 1?
- Does %{?_smp_mflags} not work? If not, might add a comment about it... if it does, it would speed up building a good amount.
It's pretty impressive that there are only 2 patches to get this building in fedora. ;)
cvs done.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2008-03-08 18:43 EST ------- Hmmm, in some ways this is a downgrade, I'd have expected Fedora to stay with the 1.7 version...
Changing package name to java-1.6.0-openjdk
Uh, why? This is still coming from the IcedTea tree, not vanilla OpenJDK. IMHO, it should be named java-1.6.0-icedtea6, as "icedtea6" is the name your upstream tarballs go under.
It's pretty impressive that there are only 2 patches to get this building in fedora. ;)
Only because all the other patches are in the IcedTea tree (which is why I consider the name to be misleading).
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-09 12:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16)
Just a few comments/issues I see:
- Why the Epoch: 1?
Yes, we'll have to add a comment to the spec file about this. This is required because of an oversight in JPackage that was brought into RHEL. Here's the comment we'll add:
# java-1.5.0-ibm from jpackage.org set Epoch to 1 for unknown reasons, # and this change was brought into RHEL-4. java-1.5.0-ibm packages # also included the epoch in their virtual provides. This created a # situation where in-the-wild java-1.5.0-ibm packages provided "java = # 1:1.5.0". In RPM terms, "1.6.0 < 1:1.5.0" since 1.6.0 is # interpreted as 0:1.6.0. So the "java >= 1.6.0" requirement would be # satisfied by the 1:1.5.0 packages. Thus we need to set the epoch in # JDK package >= 1.6.0 to 1, and packages referring to JDK virtual # provides >= 1.6.0 must specify the epoch, "java >= 1:1.6.0".
- Does %{?_smp_mflags} not work? If not, might add a comment about it... if it
does, it would speed up building a good amount.
No, OpenJDK's Makefiles don't support -j. I'll add a comment in the spec file that we should fix this upstream.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-09 12:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17)
Hmmm, in some ways this is a downgrade, I'd have expected Fedora to stay with the 1.7 version...
Changing package name to java-1.6.0-openjdk
Uh, why? This is still coming from the IcedTea tree, not vanilla OpenJDK. IMHO, it should be named java-1.6.0-icedtea6, as "icedtea6" is the name your upstream tarballs go under.
See Comment #10 for some explanation. Further to those reasons, with Sun releasing replacements for the rest of the encumbrances, OpenJDK now comprises ~99% of the code in this package.
IcedTea does still provide two significant pieces: a plugin and NetX support.
Basically though, this name change is "forward looking". IcedTea's mandate was never to continue indefinitely as its own project. The intention for it was always to merge as much as possible with upstream OpenJDK. IcedTea served a useful purpose in making OpenJDK useful immediately in Fedora 8 but its relevance is declining, and will hopefully decline further in the future as we merge our patches upstream.
It's pretty impressive that there are only 2 patches to get this building in fedora. ;)
Only because all the other patches are in the IcedTea tree
Right. We designed IcedTea's repository to follow the RPM "pristine sources" philosophy; the patches IcedTea applies could easily be hosted in Fedora CVS. As the cross-distro IcedTea patches are accepted upstream I expect to see a shift to each distribution maintaining distro-specific patch sets within their respective package source repositories. For now though there's still value in collaborating with other distros on common problems, in the IcedTea repository.
(which is why I consider the name to be misleading).
I wouldn't say the name is misleading -- Source1 is the OpenJDK tarball and contributes ~99% of the package's code.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
langel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl
------- Additional Comments From erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2008-03-11 12:09 EST ------- Would it be possible to also add this package to EPEL5?
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-03-12 10:48 EST ------- Erik: Currently it depends on lesstif (has to be branched for EPEL, not a big deal), freetype >= 2.3.0 (not a BR, but complains during the build. probably would work even with older one that's in RHEL?), and newer jpackage-utils and tzdata-java than are in RHEL. Probably there can be a way found to work this around, I'll experiment a bit when my initial build is done (and will publish a repo with this, if anyone's interested).
Moreover, it can be bootstrapped with gcj-1.5.0, but only 1.4.2 is avaliable. This can be probably worked around by manually adding java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel to the EPEL build root. I am bootstrapping with one from f9 and it seems to be sufficient.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-03-12 17:01 EST ------- Erik: Here's my build of openjdk for RHEL-5, with packages that are not in EPEL: [1]. Dependencies were grabbed from dist-f9, tzdata was changed due to #437150. Should we open another bug for efforts to get that in EPEL, so we don't spam people that were interested in review request into rawhide?
[1] http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/openjdk-el5/ (will probably be subject to move to http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/openjdk-el5/ but I am over quota and am waiting for extension approval :)
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2008-03-12 17:20 EST ------- Great job! I'll try out your repo in a couple of days to install a package called Alfresco which requires Java 1.6 on a CentOS 5 machine. I'll let you know if I notice anything strange.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-12 17:25 EST ------- Would having java-1.6.0-openjdk in EPEL cause conflicts if it were introduced later in RHEL?
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-03-12 17:34 EST ------- Thomas: Not necessarily. It could be removed from EPEL for that release. To allow smooth update you would just bump the revision to be bigger that one of the package in EPEL. We can agree on some revision number and keep the revision number of the EPEL package smaller than 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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-03-12 17:52 EST ------- I updated the Java release notes for Fedora 9:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Java
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2008-03-17 11:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22)
Erik: Here's my build of openjdk for RHEL-5, with packages that are not in EPEL: [1].
I've just tried installing a fresh CentOS 5 system with your repo enabled during the installation and your packages were automatically pulled in.
However, when installing Tomcat5 I get the following error : Updating : tomcat5 ####################### [48/74] /usr/bin/build-jar-repository: error: Could not find ecj Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-jar-repository: error: Some specified jars were not found for this jvm
This failure makes it impossible to run a tomcat based web-application. I've tried rebuilding eclipse(-ecj) against java-1.6.0-openjdk, but this fails.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-03-17 12:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22)
Should we open another bug for efforts to get that in EPEL, so we don't spam people that were interested in review request into rawhide?(In reply to
comment #27)
(In reply to comment #27)
However, when installing Tomcat5 I get the following error : Updating : tomcat5 ####################### [48/74] /usr/bin/build-jar-repository: error: Could not find ecj Java extension for
this JVM
/usr/bin/build-jar-repository: error: Some specified jars were not found for this jvm
Works for me, on fairly minimal RHEL-5.
This failure makes it impossible to run a tomcat based web-application. I've tried rebuilding eclipse(-ecj) against java-1.6.0-openjdk, but this fails.
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From walters@redhat.com 2008-03-18 15:56 EST ------- Has anyone looked at building on EL4?
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: java-1.6.0-openjdk - The OpenJDK 1.6.0 runtime environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433070
------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@redhat.com 2008-03-18 17:01 EST ------- Progress on RHEL packaging -> bug #438069
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla