[Bug 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library

[bugzilla at 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: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896





------- Additional Comments From ifoox at redhat.com  2006-06-23 17:18 EST -------
Hi Jason, thanks for the comments. I've created a new SRPM and spec here:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-10jpp_2fc.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #1)
> Since Hans has offered to sponsor you once a few of your packages are in shape,
> I thought I'd take a look at one.  I can't take this for review until you've
> been sponsored but I can make some comments.
> 
> The package builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) with the reduced
> buildroot.    The debuginfo package comes up a bit empty due to the usual rpm
> bugs with java; adding the following to the end of the %build section helps, but
> you'll want to macroize it to match the rest of the spec:
> 
> # Fix debuginfo generation
> rm -f org test
> ln -s src/org
> ln -s src/test

Done.
 
> rpmlint has this to say:
> W: libreadline-java non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> W: libreadline-java no-soname /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so.0.8.0
> W: libreadline-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libJavaReadline.so
> W: libreadline-java-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Java
> 
> I'm not sure what's happening with the package groups; Development/Libraries
> would seem appropriate unless someone has officially added the Java subgroup
> (which wasn't done for the other languages as far as I know.

Done. 

> 
> The unversioned .so file cannot go in the main package; it must go in -devel.

Can you elaborate on why an unversioned .so cannot go into the main package?

> I don't know what's causing the no-soname error; it looks like the upstream
> Makefile doesn't call GCC with -Wl,-soname,blah, but I'm not sure if this is a
> blocker in this situation.

I'll look into this next week.
 
> About the spec:
> 
> The gcj_support thing makes things pretty nasty to read; I wonder if it's really
> necessary.

The main reason for that in Java packages is that we can build these packages
in RHEL using the same spec file as in Fedora. This really cuts down on
maintenance time, and is what we do for all eclipse-* packages, as well as other
java packages in Core. I realize that it makes it a bit ugly to look at, but
I think it's a neccessary evil.

> 
> Don't set Epoch unless you need it to be a nonzero value.
> 
> No need to use an Epoch on the readline Require.

All these are fixed.
 
> I'm not sure why you need the java_readline and gnu.readline provides.

I'm not entirely sure why that was there, it was from the JPackage  RPM.
It seems safe to remove it, so I did.

> Don't use Distribution or Vendor.
> 
> You need:
> Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> instead of Requires: /sbin/ldconfig.

These are fixed as well.

Thanks again.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.