[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-2.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-2.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b40d92c431 -- You are receiving this mail because:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a57742c17b -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-11.0.1.13-11.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-11.0.1.13-11.rolling.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-6f43979cd7 -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9ea9bf0f30 -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-10.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d8b998b655 -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #45

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #44 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 Jie Kang changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #43 from Jie Kang --- One tiny nit: %changelog * Fri Apr 06 2018 Jiri Vanek - 1:10.0.0.46-9 - subpackage(s) replaced by sub-package(s) and other cosemtic changes s/cosemtic/cosmetic -- You

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #42 from jiri vanek --- Long live copypastiing: srpm: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v09/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-9.fc28.src.rpm spec:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #41 from jiri vanek --- All should be done now, except the 80chars lines. I truncated/wrapped where I felt ok. But others are contra productive from all points of view...

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #40 from Jie Kang --- Will approve once final spec/srpm is posted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #39 from Jie Kang --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #38 from Jie Kang --- Also one more typo in spec file: # this is conifg tempalte, thus not config-noreplace %config %{etcjavadir -- %{?1}}/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template s/tempalte/template --

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #37 from Jie Kang --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #36) > > ### > > java-openjdk-src.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The java-openjdk-src > > subpackage contains the complete OpenJDK 10 class

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #36 from jiri vanek --- In addition,. I had checked the state of atk wrapper. It is dead. So i will remove the empty packages in addition...(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #35) > A few specific rpmlint

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #35 from Jie Kang --- A few specific rpmlint errors I would like to address: ### java-openjdk.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:10.0.0.46-1 ['1:10.0.0.46-7.fc27', '1:10.0.0.46-7'] Will the version

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #34 from jiri vanek --- I think i have fixed all (*all* now) the issues. How do you feel about: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v07/f28/ srpm:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #33 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #32) > I think i have fixedd all the issues. How do you feel about: > https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v06/f28/ > > srpm: >

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #32 from jiri vanek --- I think i have fixedd all the issues. How do you feel about: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v06/f28/ srpm:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #31 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #27) > > W: undefined-non-weak-symbol > > This thread [1] has some people's comments on it. I think it's not a blocker > but I wonder if it can ever

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #30 from jiri vanek --- ... > > Including also alternatives, as spec contains > > alternatives --install %{_javadocdir}/java-zip javadoczip lines > > > > > > What do you think? > > Fix for javadoc-zip

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #29 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #24) > > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > I ahve

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #28 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #14) > OpenJDK contains JARs in source. Most are under openjdk/test/* which I > believe is acceptable. > >

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #27 from Jie Kang --- Created attachment 1413241 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1413241=edit rpmlint output from installed packages I attached rpmlint output run on all installed packages.

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #26 from Jie Kang --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #24) > > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > Unluckily,

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #25 from jiri vanek --- s/java_javadoc_rpo/java_javadoc_zip_rpo/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #24 from jiri vanek --- > Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in Unluckily, we have it mostly opposite. java-openjdk

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #23 from Jie Kang --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #22) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20) > > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug > > > > It shoudl no longer exists. It

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #22 from Jie Kang --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20) > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug > > It shoudl no longer exists. It hsould be >

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #21 from jiri vanek --- > 'java-openjdk-devel' has provides application() && > application(java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-4.fc27.x86_64-jconsole.desktop), these > look strange to me, is this expected? What is

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #20 from jiri vanek --- > /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-debug It shoudl no longer exists. It hsould be /usr/lib/jvm/java-10-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc27.x86_64-slowdebug now. It is created

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #19 from jiri vanek --- > 1. Are the unversioned .so files listed below okay? Should be. They are all considered as internal. I failed to tell it to RPM. If we insists on versioning, I can symlink the.so files

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #18 from jiri vanek --- > is debuginfo(build-id) okay? Looks strange. is perfectly ok. Thats something what rpm do since f27 - each subpackage have those ids, and they are stored as you see it i was buffled

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #17 from Jie Kang --- Also for provides: Provides java-openjdk-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) java-openjdk-debuginfo java-openjdk-debuginfo(x86-64) is debuginfo(build-id) okay? Looks

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #16 from Jie Kang --- Few things are now "Manual review needed". Questions: 1. Are the unversioned .so files listed below okay? 2. Which package creates

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #15 from jiri vanek --- Wou. I have never noticed those two. I would say that yes, the ons in test are aceptable, otherwise it will not be possibel to run the tests from src.rpm. On contrary, the ones in utils

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #14 from Jie Kang --- OpenJDK contains JARs in source. Most are under openjdk/test/* which I believe is acceptable. ./openjdk/src/utils/IdealGraphVisualizer/branding/modules/org-netbeans-core-windows.jar

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #13 from jiri vanek --- Updated with typos and other minor nits fixed: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v05/f28/ Notes - missing are comments which you requested (will be done) - the debug

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #12 from jiri vanek --- [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Unluckily, here is nothing i can do about this. The javadoc and jaavdoc zip were noarch up to

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #11 from Jie Kang --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #10 from Jie Kang --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #6) > [] Package must own all directories that it creates. >will be fixed. Only /usr/lib/jvm should not be owned. it is owned by > japackage tools.

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #9 from jiri vanek --- > > I see hundreds of "java-openjdk.spec: E: specfile-error error: Too many > > levels of recursion in macro expansion. It is likely caused by recursive > > macro declaration." ... > > The

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #8 from jiri vanek --- > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > This is major thing, and cant be fixed. The Usage of %global on top of > %define is wrongly interpreted in fedora. If you

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #7 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5) > Created attachment 1411281 [details] > check from another user You had nicely nearly no-intersection :) -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #6 from jiri vanek --- [] Package must own all directories that it creates. will be fixed. Only /usr/lib/jvm should not be owned. it is owned by japackage tools. Also I think it is mentioned somewher ein

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #5 from jiri vanek --- Created attachment 1411281 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1411281=edit check from another user -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #4 from Jie Kang --- Package Review == SPEC: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v04/f28/java-openjdk.spec SRPM:

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #3 from jiri vanek --- Released: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2018-March/000247.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 Jie Kang changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #2 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #1) > Created attachment 1409888 [details] > Diff of spelling/grammar/consistency changes to spec > > I've attached a diff making

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #1 from Jie Kang --- Created attachment 1409888 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1409888=edit Diff of spelling/grammar/consistency changes to spec I've attached a diff making

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||ahug...@redhat.com

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ahug...@redhat.com

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 jiri vanek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jk...@redhat.com --