#25 Patch for pcsc-devel being replaced by pcsc-libs, removed LTS designator, release change
Merged 22 days ago by pmikova. Opened a month ago by pmikova.
rpms/ pmikova/java-openjdk master  into  master

file modified
+17 -16

@@ -214,16 +214,10 @@ 

  # Used via new version scheme. JDK 11 was

  # GA'ed in March 2019 => 19.3

  %global vendor_version_string 19.3

- # Add LTS designator for RHEL builds

- %if 0%{?rhel}

-   # the rolling release isneverpacked for rhel,

-   # nro even in epel, will this LTS be used

-   %global lts_designator "LTS"

-   %global lts_designator_zip -%{lts_designator}

- %else

-   %global lts_designator ""

-   %global lts_designator_zip ""

- %endif

+ # We don't add any LTS designator for STS packages (this package).

+ # Neither for Fedora nor EPEL which would have %%{rhel} macro defined.

+  %global lts_designator ""

+  %global lts_designator_zip ""

  

  # Standard JPackage naming and versioning defines

  %global origin          openjdk

@@ -231,7 +225,7 @@ 

  %global top_level_dir_name   %{origin}

  %global minorver        0

  %global buildver        33

- # priority must be 8 digits in total; untill openjdk 1.8 we were using 18..... so when moving to 11 we had to add another digit

+ # priority must be 8 digits in total; up to openjdk 1.8, we were using 18..... so when we moved to 11, we had to add another digit

  %if %is_system_jdk

  %global priority %( printf '%02d%02d%02d%02d' %{majorver} %{minorver} %{securityver} %{buildver} )

  %else

@@ -840,8 +834,6 @@ 

  Requires: javapackages-filesystem

  # Require zone-info data provided by tzdata-java sub-package

  Requires: tzdata-java >= 2015d

- # libsctp.so.1 is being `dlopen`ed on demand

- Requires: lksctp-tools%{?_isa}

  # there is a need to depend on the exact version of NSS

  Requires: nss%{?_isa} %{NSS_BUILDTIME_VERSION}

  Requires: nss-softokn%{?_isa} %{NSSSOFTOKN_BUILDTIME_VERSION}

@@ -857,7 +849,7 @@ 

  # Postun requires alternatives to uninstall tool alternatives

  Requires(postun): %{_sbindir}/alternatives

  # for optional support of kernel stream control, card reader and printing bindings

- Suggests: lksctp-tools%{?_isa}, pcsc-lite-devel%{?_isa}

+ Suggests: lksctp-tools%{?_isa}, pcsc-lite-libs%{?_isa}

  

  # Standard JPackage base provides

  Provides: jre-%{javaver}-%{origin}-headless%{?1} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}

@@ -952,7 +944,7 @@ 

  # This package needs `.rolling` as part of Release so as to not conflict on install with

  # java-X-openjdk. I.e. when latest rolling release is also an LTS release packaged as

  # java-X-openjdk. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647298

- Release: 2.ea.1.rolling%{?dist}

+ Release: 3.rolling%{?dist}

  # 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

@@ -1023,6 +1015,8 @@ 

  Patch4:    pr3183-rh1340845-support_fedora_rhel_system_crypto_policy.patch

  # System NSS via SunEC Provider

  Patch5:    pr1983-rh1565658-support_using_the_system_installation_of_nss_with_the_sunec_provider_jdk12.patch

+ # Depend on pcs-lite-libs instead of pcs-lite-devel as this is only in optional repo

+ Patch6: rh1684077-openjdk_should_depend_on_pcsc-lite-libs_instead_of_pcsc-lite-devel.patch

  

  BuildRequires: autoconf

  BuildRequires: automake

@@ -1271,6 +1265,7 @@ 

  %patch3 -p1

  %patch4 -p1

  %patch5 -p1

+ %patch6 -p1

  popd # openjdk

  

  %patch1000

@@ -1788,7 +1783,7 @@ 

  %{files_javadoc %{nil}}

  

  # this puts huge file to /usr/share

- # unluckily ti is really a documentation file

+ # unluckily it is really a documentation file

  # and unluckily it really is architecture-dependent, as eg. aot and grail are now x86_64 only

  # same for debug variant

  %files javadoc-zip

@@ -1823,6 +1818,12 @@ 

  

  

  %changelog

+ * Thu Mar 21 2019 Petra Mikova <pmikova@redhat.com - 1:12.0.0.33-3.rolling

+ - Replaced pcsc-lite-devel (which is in optional channel) with pcsc-lite-libs.

+ - added rh1684077-openjdk_should_depend_on_pcsc-lite-libs_instead_of_pcsc-lite-devel.patch to make jdk work with pcsc

+ - removed LTS string from LTS designator, because epel builds get identified as rhel and JDK 12 is not LTS

+ - removed duplicated dependency on lksctp-tools

+ 

  * Wed Mar 20 2019 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@fedoraproject.org> 1:12.0.0.33-2.ea.1.rolling

  - Drop chkconfig dep, 1.7 shipped in f24

  

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ 

+ --- openjdk/src/java.smartcardio/unix/classes/sun/security/smartcardio/PlatformPCSC.java	2013-03-01 10:48:12.038189968 +0100

+ +++ openjdk/src/java.smartcardio/unix/classes/sun/security/smartcardio/PlatformPCSC.java	2013-03-01 10:48:11.913188505 +0100

+ @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@

+  

+      private final static String PROP_NAME = "sun.security.smartcardio.library";

+  

+ -    private final static String LIB1 = "/usr/$LIBISA/libpcsclite.so";

+ -    private final static String LIB2 = "/usr/local/$LIBISA/libpcsclite.so";

+ +    private final static String LIB1 = "/usr/$LIBISA/libpcsclite.so.1";

+ +    private final static String LIB2 = "/usr/local/$LIBISA/libpcsclite.so.1";

+      private final static String PCSC_FRAMEWORK = "/System/Library/Frameworks/PCSC.framework/Versions/Current/PCSC";

+  

+      PlatformPCSC() {

Hi,
please review my changes to:

  • pcsc-devel are replaced by pcsc-libs, patch modified to work with ojdk12
  • LTS designator removed to align with epel branch
  • removed ea from release, as jdk12 was released yesterday
  • removed duplicated dependency on lksctp-tools
  • fixed various typos

Thanks!

What is the need for the pcsc-lite change? EPEL?

Rest looks good. Good catch on the typos.

Have you considered folding this into a static:

# We don't add any LTS designator for STS packages (this package).
# Neither for Fedora nor EPEL which would have %%{rhel} macro defined.
 %global lts_designator ""
 %global lts_designator_zip ""

Then we could just get rid of those conditionals which amount to the same.

Other than the above comment. Looks good to me.

What is the need for the pcsc-lite change? EPEL?

In general, yes, but I suppose we should keep the spec files synced, so if something breaks, we will notice. Also, if we will use this spec someday in RHEL, we could easily miss the patch and the bug could re-occur. Adding the patch is imho the right way to go.

Rest looks good. Good catch on the typos.

Thanks!

Have you considered folding this into a static:

Yes I did, but I tried to stay as consistent as possible with other OpenJDK spec files. But if that is not the priority, I am fine (and happy) with using it like you suggested, I agree it looks better and cleaner this way.

Pushed a commit that changes the LTS designator the way you suggested.

Thanks both!

1 new commit added

  • Removed conditionals in lts designator
a month ago

Have you considered folding this into a static:

Yes I did, but I tried to stay as consistent as possible with other OpenJDK spec files. But if that is not the priority, I am fine (and happy) with using it like you suggested, I agree it looks better and cleaner this way.
Pushed a commit that changes the LTS designator the way you suggested.

Thanks. FWIW, there is divergence either way. a) set LTS to "" over "LTS" in the RHEL branch b) don't have this branch at all. If divergence I prefer the approach which makes the spec easier to read.

This is good to go for me.

Ok. by my. Thank you all!

Pull-Request has been merged by pmikova

22 days ago