Bug#1010907: lintian: bad-jar-name check doesn't handle suffixes
Package: lintian Version: 2.114.0 Severity: normal The bad-jar-name check flags many packages that do conform to the Java policy, which allows a suffix after the base package name (packagename-extraname.jar). See for example the batik package, /usr/share/java/batik-all.jar and its siblings are wrongly reported. Emmanuel Bourg
Re: Bug#1005762: marked as pending in lintian
Le 15/02/2022 à 23:28, Felix Lechner a écrit : Thank you for the advice. The value was adjusted back to the previous value: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/11926263c63e9286339f49dbbee55dd45982b621 It looks good, thank you. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#1005762: marked as pending in lintian
Le 15/02/2022 à 06:50, Felix Lechner a écrit : Recognize Java 18 in unstable, and Java 19 as otherwise available. (Closes: #1005762) With openjdk-18 version 18~32ea-1 in unstable, we also adjusted the highest version available in Debian to bytecode version 62. Thank you for the quick fix Felix. I think max-bytecode-version should remain at 56, because Java 11 is still the default version. Once the transition to Java 17 is completed this could be changed to 61. Java 18 isn't a LTS release, so 62 will never be used. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#1005762: lintian: Update known Java version up to 19
Package: lintian Version: 2.114.0 Severity: normal User: debian-j...@lists.debian.org Usertags: default-java17 Dear Maintainer, Lintian doesn't recognize bytecode generated by Java 17 yet (the unknown-java-class-version warning is emitted). Could you please update the maximum known Java version to the latest one please (i.e. Java 19, with bytecode version 63). Thank you, Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#963939: lintian: breakout-link wrongly reported against jar files
Hi Felix, Le 02/07/2020 à 16:15, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Why did you place the links, which appear to be > architecture-independent, in /usr/lib and not in /usr/share? The src:eclipse-* packages install files in /usr/share/ and /usr/lib/. The /usr/lib/ links were added to preserve the compatibility with the layout of the old src:eclipse package (which dates back to 2002, it was replaced two years ago by a set of smaller packages) : https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/eclipse-platform/filelist https://packages.debian.org/stretch/amd64/eclipse-rcp/filelist Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#963939: lintian: breakout-link wrongly reported against jar files
Package: lintian Version: 2.82.0 Severity: normal Hi, lintian is reporting breakout-link warnings on several Eclipse packages (such as eclipse-platform-ui). This is due to links in /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/ pointing to jar files in /usr/share/java/. I don't think this warning applies to architecture independent jar files. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#962448: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure: Please ignore the Debian Java Maintainers address
Package: lintian Version: 2.80.0 Severity: normal Hi, Lintian reports a mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning for the packages maintained by the Java Team: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure Debian Java Maintainers The address is valid and the team doesn't plan to migrate 1000+ packages to a different address. Could you please exclude this address from the ones reported by this tag? Thank you, Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#471537: fixed in lintian 2.42.0
On 29/12/2019 17:50, Felix Lechner wrote: > Done with: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/ca5adad9cb21805b871a9f2e6cdd30b8bdb0246c > > Thanks for helping to make Lintian better. Thank you for the quick fix! Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#471537: fixed in lintian 2.42.0
> lintian (2.42.0) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Add new checks for when repackaged > sources are not properly advertised as such. (Closes: #471537) I've just stumbled on this new warning and I disagree with the recommendation. Sometimes we just filter out garbage from the upstream sources and we don't want to add a +repack suffix. This is a very common pattern in the Java team where .jar, GitHub CI and IDE settings files are frequently removed and we don't want to fiddle with the version to keep things clear and simple. I suggest changing the severity to info or pedantic, and adjust the description to explain the suffix is optional. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#789802: lintian: False positive source-contains-prebuilt-java-object reported against jar files without classes
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo On 24/12/2017 21:33, Chris Lamb wrote: > Do you have any up-to-date false-positives? The ones you listed > are now not showing up for me :) cronometer is another example. Lintian reports two jar files that only contain xml files and no compiled Java files: P: cronometer source: source-contains-prebuilt-java-object lib/crdb_005.jar P: cronometer source: source-contains-prebuilt-java-object lib/usda_sr24.jar
Bug#873211: lintian: does not warn about .class binaries
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:34:47 + Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote: > lintian (2.5.53) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* Summary of tag changes: > + Added: >- package-installs-java-bytecode Hi, Thanks for improving the Java support in Lintian, I'd suggest CCing these topics to debian-j...@lists.debian.org to gather more feedback on the proposed changes. I got a look at the packages affected by the new package-installs-java-bytecode tag [1], they mostly consist in demos/examples, webapp classes or one-class programs not meant to be re-used as libraries. For these cases installing .class files directly in the binary package is legitimate I think. jar files are really important for reusable libraries and large applications (since jar files are more space efficient), but there is no harm shipping a few isolated .class files. The Java Policy probably needs a clarification on this point. As I understand Carnë was concerned about .class files in the upstream tarballs not recompiled from source and installed as-is in the binary packages. I was under the impression this case was already covered by source-contains-prebuilt-java-object but it isn't. I agree it would be nice to handle this. So I suggest the following: - modify source-contains-prebuilt-java-object to also detect .class files - lower the severity of package-installs-java-bytecode to pendatic or info - trigger package-installs-java-bytecode in non-library packages only when the number of classes detected in the package exceeds 20. - do not trigger package-installs-java-bytecode if the path contains "WEB-INF", "demo", "doc", "example", "sample" or "test". - strictly speaking a class file isn't raw bytecode instructions, so maybe rename the tag to "package-installs-java-class-files". - verify if the .class files are really Java class files (by checking the 0xCAFEBABE header, this will avoid false positives like apertium-eo-fr and grass-core). Emmanuel Bourg [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-installs-java-bytecode.html
Bug#857123: lintian: warning about missing classpath is confusing
Le 8/03/2017 à 10:19, Markus Koschany a écrit : > I suggest to remove this Lintian tag or lower the severity from > warning to info. +1 for lowering the severity to info. Emmanuel Bourg
Bug#789802: lintian: False positive source-contains-prebuilt-java-object reported against jar files without classes
apache-log4j2 is another example, it contains an IntellijSettings.jar file with IDE settings (plain text files, no compiled classes). https://sources.debian.net/src/apache-log4j2/2.2-1/src/ide/Intellij/13/
Bug#789802: lintian: False positive source-contains-prebuilt-java-object reported against jar files without classes
maven-invoker-plugin is a good example of a package containing empty jar files. The source tarball ships with 3 jar files used by the integration tests, they contain only a MANIFEST.MF file and no compiled class: ebourg@icare:~/packaging/maven-invoker-plugin$ tar -tf ../maven-invoker-plugin_1.5.orig.tar.gz | grep jar maven-invoker-plugin-1.5/src/it/staging-dependencies/repo/org/apache/maven/its/minvoker-70/1.0-SNAPSHOT/minvoker-70-1.0-20081020.164906-1.jar maven-invoker-plugin-1.5/src/it/staging-dependencies/repo/org/apache/maven/its/dep/1.0/dep-1.0-tests.jar maven-invoker-plugin-1.5/src/it/staging-dependencies/repo/org/apache/maven/its/dep/2.0/dep-2.0.jar ebourg@icare:~/packaging/maven-invoker-plugin$ jar -tf src/it/staging-dependencies/repo/org/apache/maven/its/dep/1.0/dep-1.0-tests.jar META-INF/ META-INF/MANIFEST.MF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/559e9fb0.5050...@apache.org
Bug#791552: lintian: [new check] verify that JAR filename complies with Debian Java Policy
Le 06/07/2015 06:36, tony mancill a écrit : This warning is useful because some components of the Debian Java toolchain fail when JAR files don't comply with the naming policy. Hi Tony, For my understanding, what are the tools relying on this naming policy? I'm asking because I'm pretty sure many packages don't strictly adhere to the Java policy on this point (for example liblog4j1.2-java vs /usr/share/java/log4j-1.2.jar) and I'm not under the impression it's causing such a havoc. Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/559bb4dc.2080...@apache.org
Bug#789802: lintian: False positive source-contains-prebuilt-java-object reported against jar files without classes
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.31 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, Some packages contain jar files without classes which are improperly reported as prebuilt Java objects. It would be nice to also check the content of the jar files and ensure they do not contain any .class file before reporting this warning. Thank you, Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150624153133.4316.17930.report...@icare.ariane-software.com
Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7
Le 27/05/2015 15:41, Jan Henke a écrit : I think gcj serves one single purpose only at this point in time: Bootstrapping during the OpenJDK build. This is no longer true with OpenJDK 8 unfortunately, Java 7 is now required. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5565cf4a.4040...@apache.org
Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7
Le 26/05/2015 16:52, Rene Engelhard a écrit : I think we should decide what our Java baseline is and how it affects release archs_before_ changing this. The best we can do I think is to identify the applications that should work with GCJ (Ant and LibreOffice for example) and ensure their dependencies are still compatible with the Java 5 API. But as Niels stated it's impossible to keep the Java 5 compatibility everywhere (Java 9 will even be unable to generate Java 5 bytecode [1]). Emmanuel Bourg [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/182 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5564952a.6030...@apache.org
Bug#786895: lintian: incompatible-java-bytecode-format warning needs update for Java 1.7
Le 26/05/2015 15:58, Markus Koschany a écrit : I assume all members of the team agree with this change. Yes that makes sense. Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55647e82.4080...@apache.org
Bug#757615: (no subject)
It looks like this new lintian check gives false positives when the License field contains or: License: CDDL or GPL-2 W: jenkins source: space-in-std-shortname-in-dep5-copyright cddl or gpl-2 (paragraph at line 99) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/540c531d.6050...@apache.org
Bug#743384: lintian: Update unknown-java-class-version to support Java 8 class version (52)
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22.1 Severity: normal Hi, Could you please support the Java 8 class version in the unknown-java-class-version check? OpenJDK 8 is being packaged and lintian complains about the new class version (52 for Java 8, Java 7 used 51) Thank you, Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533bcb3f.9030...@apache.org
Bug#743384: lintian: Update unknown-java-class-version to support Java 8 class version (52)
Le 02/04/2014 13:26, Matthias Klose a écrit : and I think it should warn about it. We do not want Java 8 bytecode in the archive except for the JDK itself. I think that's the purpose of incompatible-java-bytecode-format: http://lintian.debian.org/tags/incompatible-java-bytecode-format.html The package contains Java class files with a minimum requirement on the listed Java version. This Java version is not supported by the default JVM in Debian and is therefore likely to be a mistake. Emmanuel Bourg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/533bf7c1.6070...@apache.org
