[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-06-15 21:57:22 EDT --- proguard-4.3-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||4.3-4.fc11 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-06-12 11:23:47 EDT --- proguard-4.3-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/proguard-4.3-4.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 Jason Tibbitts changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-06-10 17:10:29 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 François Kooman changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from François Kooman 2009-06-10 14:17:22 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: proguard Short Description: Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier Owners: fkooman Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 --- Comment #7 from François Kooman 2009-06-10 14:14:30 EDT --- I've updated the package again considering your remarks. Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard-4.3-4.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-06-09 16:41:50 EDT --- On a second thought, these are not blockers. You can do these changes before you commit if you want. --- This package (proguard) is APPROVED by oget --- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-06-09 16:38:00 EDT --- Thanks, we're almost there. Versioned jar symlinks are for convenience with java libraries. Will anyone use proguard's jar files as a library? If yes, then it is a good idea to make unversioned symlinks. ! Would you consider adding a GenericName key to the .desktop file? That will make KDE users happy. Gnome uses Comment, KDE uses GenericName. ! You can BR ImageMagick and convert those icons in your specfile. That way you don't need to deal with additional sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489 --- Comment #4 from François Kooman 2009-06-09 14:31:00 EDT --- I think all issues are fixed now. Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard.spec SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard-4.3-3.fc11.src.rpm One more thing: I install the JAR files without version in their name, is that a problem? Most of the time Java packages install a versioned JAR file and create an unversioned symlink. Would that be better? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-06-08
15:18:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard.spec
> SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
>
Thanks for the update!
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > ! Please explain in the specfile as comments what Sources 1-3 are for.
>
> Done.
>
Can you also use "cp -p" with them to preserve timestamps?
> > ! Not a blocker, but in the docs/ and examples/ directories, there are html,
> > xml and pro files that refer to /usr/local/. You might want to fix them.
>
> I've included a README.dist now.
>
> > ? Any reason why you don't put the jar files directly in /usr/share/java/ ?
>
> Yes, Packaging:Java says something about this:
> """ 1. If the number of provided JAR files exceeds two, you must place them
> into a sub-directory. """
>
> Maybe I misread/misunderstood?
Ah, right. Then can you
(from comment #1)
> replace
>%{_javadir}/%{name}*
> with
>%{_javadir}/%{name}/
> in %files to indicate that this is a directory?
>
> > * If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include a
> > properly installed .desktop file.
>
> Done. The problem now is that I can't find a suitable icon for ProGuard
> anywhere. For now I use the "java" icon.
>
That's fine. You could also derive something from the png files in the docs/
directory, or ask the upstream about this.
Btw,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/*/apps/java.png
files belong to java-1.6.0-openjdk, so if you use that icon, you need to
require this version of java.
> > ! You need to specify a specific java version in BR and R. See:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
> > In your case this ought to be 1.5
>
> This doesn't seem mandatory the way I read this? Also it is not mentioned in
> the "ant" template I used to create this spec file. Furthermore, I tried to
> compile it with "-source 1.4" and that also works?
>
Well, it's good to have it to indicate what versions of java can be used with
this software.
> > * GCJ AOT bits SHOULD be built and included in packages. Since this package
> > builds with java 1.5, this will bring great performance improvements on ppc*
> > architectures. Please follow:
> >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines
>
> I did this now. However, rpmbuild gives some warnings now:
>
> + /usr/bin/aot-compile-rpm
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/aotcompile.py:18: DeprecationWarning: the md5
> module is deprecated; use hashlib instead
> import md5
> aot-compile-rpm: warning: subsetted
> /home/fkooman/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/java/proguard/proguardgui.jar
> aot-compile-rpm: warning: subsetted
> /home/fkooman/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/java/proguard/retrace.jar
>
> WARNING: Error loading security provider
> org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider:
> java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
> org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider not found in
> gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./],
> parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}
> WARNING: Error loading security provider
> org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider:
> java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
> org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider not found in
> gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./],
> parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}
>
> rpmlint is also not totally happy:
>
> [fkoo...@localhost x86_64]$ rpmlint proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm
> proguard.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
> /usr/lib64/gcj/proguard/proguard.jar.so
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> [fkoo...@localhost x86_64]$
>
Hmm, I don't get these warnings. Koji rawhide build doesn't show them either
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1399792
Do you use mock? If not, do you have redhat-rpm-config installed?
> and the one that is due to GCJ (which can be ignored):
>
> proguard.spec:118: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
> %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
>
Yes, this warning can be ignored (this is the only warning I got on my build).
Btw, you can just remove the %attr(-,root,root) part. I've been pinging java
folks about this and a few other things that need to be updated in the java
packaging guidelines. Things go "a little" slow.
> > Can you review my package (bug #504521 )? It is java too.
>
> It seems someone is already interested in reviewing it. I added myself to the
> CC of the bug anyway and look through it soon. Thanks for your review!
You're welcome! Yep. Rakesh took it :) It's okay.
* Also, please use macros consistently. E.g.
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} a
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489
--- Comment #2 from François Kooman 2009-06-08 14:14:03
EDT ---
Spec URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard.spec
SRPM URL: http://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/proguard/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
> ! Please explain in the specfile as comments what Sources 1-3 are for.
Done.
> ! Not a blocker, but in the docs/ and examples/ directories, there are html,
> xml and pro files that refer to /usr/local/. You might want to fix them.
I've included a README.dist now.
> ? Any reason why you don't put the jar files directly in /usr/share/java/ ?
Yes, Packaging:Java says something about this:
""" 1. If the number of provided JAR files exceeds two, you must place them
into a sub-directory. """
Maybe I misread/misunderstood?
> * If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include a
> properly installed .desktop file.
Done. The problem now is that I can't find a suitable icon for ProGuard
anywhere. For now I use the "java" icon.
> ! You need to specify a specific java version in BR and R. See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
> In your case this ought to be 1.5
This doesn't seem mandatory the way I read this? Also it is not mentioned in
the "ant" template I used to create this spec file. Furthermore, I tried to
compile it with "-source 1.4" and that also works?
> * GCJ AOT bits SHOULD be built and included in packages. Since this package
> builds with java 1.5, this will bring great performance improvements on ppc*
> architectures. Please follow:
>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines
I did this now. However, rpmbuild gives some warnings now:
+ /usr/bin/aot-compile-rpm
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/aotcompile.py:18: DeprecationWarning: the md5
module is deprecated; use hashlib instead
import md5
aot-compile-rpm: warning: subsetted
/home/fkooman/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/java/proguard/proguardgui.jar
aot-compile-rpm: warning: subsetted
/home/fkooman/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64/usr/share/java/proguard/retrace.jar
WARNING: Error loading security provider
org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider:
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider not found in
gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./],
parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}
WARNING: Error loading security provider
org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider:
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider not found in
gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:./],
parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}
rpmlint is also not totally happy:
[fkoo...@localhost x86_64]$ rpmlint proguard-4.3-2.fc11.x86_64.rpm
proguard.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/gcj/proguard/proguard.jar.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[fkoo...@localhost x86_64]$
and the one that is due to GCJ (which can be ignored):
proguard.spec:118: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
> Can you review my package (bug #504521 )? It is java too.
It seems someone is already interested in reviewing it. I added myself to the
CC of the bug anyway and look through it soon. Thanks for your review!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 504489] Review Request: proguard - Java class file shrinker, optimizer, obfuscator and preverifier
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=504489
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-06-07
18:08:26 EDT ---
Here are my notes for this package:
- rpmlint is silent.
- koji rawhide build seems fine
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397983
! Please explain in the specfile as comments what Sources 1-3 are for.
! Not a blocker, but in the docs/ and examples/ directories, there are html,
xml and pro files that refer to /usr/local/. You might want to fix them.
? Any reason why you don't put the jar files directly in /usr/share/java/ ? If
you definitely need to put the jar files in /usr/share/java/proguard/ , can you
replace
%{_javadir}/%{name}*
with
%{_javadir}/%{name}/
in %files to indicate that this is a directory?
* If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include a
properly installed .desktop file. Please follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
! You need to specify a specific java version in BR and R. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
In your case this ought to be 1.5
* GCJ AOT bits SHOULD be built and included in packages. Since this package
builds with java 1.5, this will bring great performance improvements on ppc*
architectures. Please follow:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines
Can you review my package (bug #504521 )? It is java too.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
