[Bug 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-11 14:00:45 EDT --- findbugs-1.3.7-6.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||1.3.7-6.fc10 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ Bug 464014 depends on bug 475603, which changed state. Bug 475603 Summary: Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475603 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-03-10 16:11:12 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-10 23:22:51 EDT --- findbugs-1.3.7-6.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/findbugs-1.3.7-6.fc10 -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-09 09:24:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) As for the Class-Path in the MANIFEST.MF, I understand the advice to avoid that field. It can cause problems. However, its use in this case is mandatory. I think the answer in this case is wrapper scripts but I probably don't understand the whole situation. I personally hate it when we diverge from upstream in cases like this, potentially breaking user assumptions. Java 7 can't come soon enough. :-) Or OSGi ;) -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-03-09 10:25:49 EDT --- approved -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-03-09 15:21:02 EDT --- In response to comment #12, findbugs does come with wrapper scripts for invoking it from the command line. However, there are some consumers of findbugs that invoke the jar directly. Without the Class-Path entry, those would have to be modified. Thank you, Lillian and Andrew! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: findbugs Short Description: Find bugs in Java code Owners: jjames Branches: F-10 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(loganje...@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-03-06 17:41:20 EDT --- I moved the description of the -tools subpackage into README.fedora, which is a %doc file for that subpackage and made the %description more succinct. New versions are here: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-4.fc10.src.rpm As for the Class-Path in the MANIFEST.MF, I understand the advice to avoid that field. It can cause problems. However, its use in this case is mandatory. There are other projects which consume findbugs, in the sense that they invoke its jar to gain access to its functionality. When a jar is invoked with java -jar X.jar, then the CLASSPATH environment variable is ignored; Java uses only the Class-Path field in the manifest. So that field had better be nonempty and absolutely correct. In general, invokable jars (those with a Main-Class entry in the manifest) should be exempt from the no Class-Path rule. Java 7 can't come soon enough. :-) It's modular deployment facilities should render all this brain damage moot. In the meantime, please let the Class-Path entry stay. I need it for other software I wish to push into Fedora in the future. -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(loganje...@gmail. |
|com)|
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-03-05 15:16:48 EDT
---
Lillian, thanks for the review. I've been wanting to get this package into
Fedora for a very long time. It's good to see that we're almost done with its
dependencies and have movement on the package itself. Here are my responses to
the items raised above:
1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
The lib/*.jars and questionable files should be removed from the zip
prior to uploading it. Please recreate the zip.
I do not know of any questionable files in the source release. To what do you
refer?
By my reading of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL, I have to
use the unmodified zip file unless that file contains prohibited elements. The
jars in the lib directory are all released under licenses that allow
redistribution. This includes AppleJavaExtension.jar, whose license
information (included in lib/LICENSE_AppleJavaExtensions.txt) shows that that
jar is distributed under a slightly modified MIT license. Unless I have
misunderstood something, I must not modify the zip file. If I have
misunderstood, please help me understand.
Note that the spec file deletes all the jar files in the %prep stage, so none
of them are used in building.
1.15 Requires
Have each on a separate Requires line.
1.16 BuildRequires
Have each on a separate BuildRequires line.
I do prefer keeping them on one line. In my typical monitor setup, vertical
space is more precious than horizontal space. Nevertheless, this is such a
minor point that I don't really want to argue about it, so I'll do it your way.
1.17 Summary and description
Can you shorten the tools description. This is too much information-
possibly remove the class names etc.
This information appears nowhere else. If I take it out of the description,
where do you suggest I put it?
1.23 Requiring Base Package
ok, but please put all Requires on a separate line
Done.
Now for the rpmlint complaints:
ant-findbugs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
This is the group of ant itself, also maven. Since groups aren't consumed by
any Fedora tools (they use comps.xml instead), the group really doesn't matter
anyway. I think this choice is appropriate so that it corresponds to ant.
findbugs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/findbugs-1.3.7/doc/manual_ja.xml
I included the entire doc directory in %doc. But this file is input to
docbook, and shouldn't appear in the binary rpm. It looks like the files named
manual* are no longer needed once the manual is built. I'll delete them.
findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar
The ClassPath entry in the manifest is necessary to find dependent jars. The
rpmlint complaint about older Java versions no longer applies to any supported
Fedora release, nor even to the latest RedHat EL. It is true that versioned
ClassPath entries are inflexible, but note that I used only unversioned
entries.
findbugs.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/findbugs-tools.jar
This is bogus. That is the lib directory in the source distribution, not /lib
or /usr/lib.
findbugs.src: W: non-coherent-filename findbugs-1.3.7-2.src.rpm
findbugs-1.3.7-2.fc10.src.rpm
That's just a filename problem on my web site, not a spec file problem. It
will have no effect on koji builds. I'll give you a well-named file below.
findbugs-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
Same remark as the one above about the main package group.
New versions are here:
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec
SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-3.fc10.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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 15:33:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar The ClassPath entry in the manifest is necessary to find dependent jars. The rpmlint complaint about older Java versions no longer applies to any supported Fedora release, nor even to the latest RedHat EL. It is true that versioned ClassPath entries are inflexible, but note that I used only unversioned entries. I'm pretty sure the arguments against ClassPath entries in MANIFEST.MF has to do with them being inflexible regardless of whether they're versioned or not -- they specify hard-coded paths to JARs. Ville or Nicholas would be good to consult on reasoning for this and to get it added to the guidelines so we don't have to speculate. I think one of them actually put a note on the Java guidelines talk page. -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(loganje...@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #10 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-03-05 15:48:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) Lillian, thanks for the review. I've been wanting to get this package into Fedora for a very long time. It's good to see that we're almost done with its dependencies and have movement on the package itself. Here are my responses to the items raised above: 1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries The lib/*.jars and questionable files should be removed from the zip prior to uploading it. Please recreate the zip. I do not know of any questionable files in the source release. To what do you refer? By my reading of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL, I have to use the unmodified zip file unless that file contains prohibited elements. The jars in the lib directory are all released under licenses that allow redistribution. This includes AppleJavaExtension.jar, whose license information (included in lib/LICENSE_AppleJavaExtensions.txt) shows that that jar is distributed under a slightly modified MIT license. Unless I have misunderstood something, I must not modify the zip file. If I have misunderstood, please help me understand. Note that the spec file deletes all the jar files in the %prep stage, so none of them are used in building. As long as all the files are redistributable, this is ok. Thanks for the explanation. 1.15 Requires Have each on a separate Requires line. 1.16 BuildRequires Have each on a separate BuildRequires line. I do prefer keeping them on one line. In my typical monitor setup, vertical space is more precious than horizontal space. Nevertheless, this is such a minor point that I don't really want to argue about it, so I'll do it your way. As I said, I wont reject the review based on this. If you would prefer to group them in such a way, that is fine. Comments can help to explain the groupings. We can leave this as is. 1.17 Summary and description Can you shorten the tools description. This is too much information- possibly remove the class names etc. This information appears nowhere else. If I take it out of the description, where do you suggest I put it? Don't take out the description, please modify it. It should be short and concise. 1.23 Requiring Base Package ok, but please put all Requires on a separate line Done. Now for the rpmlint complaints: ant-findbugs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Build Tools This is the group of ant itself, also maven. Since groups aren't consumed by any Fedora tools (they use comps.xml instead), the group really doesn't matter anyway. I think this choice is appropriate so that it corresponds to ant. ok, that's fine. findbugs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/findbugs-1.3.7/doc/manual_ja.xml I included the entire doc directory in %doc. But this file is input to docbook, and shouldn't appear in the binary rpm. It looks like the files named manual* are no longer needed once the manual is built. I'll delete them. Or run dos2unix on the file findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar The ClassPath entry in the manifest is necessary to find dependent jars. The rpmlint complaint about older Java versions no longer applies to any supported Fedora release, nor even to the latest RedHat EL. It is true that versioned ClassPath entries are inflexible, but note that I used only unversioned entries. see Andrew's comment above. findbugs.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/findbugs-tools.jar This is bogus. That is the lib directory in the source distribution, not /lib or /usr/lib. ok. findbugs.src: W: non-coherent-filename findbugs-1.3.7-2.src.rpm findbugs-1.3.7-2.fc10.src.rpm That's just a filename problem on my web site, not a spec file problem. It will have no effect on koji builds. I'll give you a well-named file below. thanks findbugs-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation Same remark as the one above about the main package group. ok New versions are here: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Bug 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lan...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lan...@redhat.com -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014
Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-,
||needinfo?(loganje...@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #4 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-03-04 10:54:49 EDT
---
* 1 Packaging Guidelines
o 1.1 Naming
ok
o 1.2 Version and Release
ok
o 1.3 Legal
LGPLv2+, ok.
1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
The lib/*.jars and questionable files should be removed from the zip
prior to uploading it. Please recreate the zip.
o 1.5 Spec Legibility
ok
o 1.6 Writing a package from scratch
ok
o 1.7 Modifying an existing package
n/a
o 1.8 Architecture Support
ok
o 1.9 Filesystem Layout
ok
1.10 Use rpmlint
see errors below, and fix.
o 1.11 Changelogs
ok
o 1.12 Tags
ok
o 1.13 BuildRoot tag
ok
o 1.14 %clean
ok
1.15 Requires
Have each on a separate Requires line.
1.16 BuildRequires
Have each on a separate BuildRequires line.
1.17 Summary and description
Can you shorten the tools description. This is too much information-
possibly remove the class names etc.
o 1.18 Encoding
ok
o 1.19 Documentation
ok
o 1.20 Compiler flags
ok
o 1.21 Debuginfo packages
n/a
o 1.22 Devel Packages
n/a
1.23 Requiring Base Package
ok, but please put all Requires on a separate line
o 1.24 Shared Libraries
ok
o 1.25 Packaging Static Libraries
n/a
o 1.26 Duplication of system libraries
n/a
o 1.27 Beware of Rpath
n/a
o 1.28 Configuration files
n/a
o 1.29 Initscripts
n/a
o 1.30 Desktop files
n/a
o 1.31 Macros
ok
o 1.32 Handling Locale Files
n/a
o 1.33 Timestamps
n/a
o 1.34 Parallel make
n/a
o 1.35 Scriptlets
n/a
o 1.36 Conditional dependencies
n/a
o 1.37 Build packages with separate user accounts
ok
o 1.38 Relocatable packages
ok
o 1.39 Code Vs Content
ok
o 1.40 File and Directory Ownership
ok
o 1.41 Users and Groups
n/a
o 1.42 Web Applications
n/a
o 1.43 Conflicts
n/a
o 1.44 No External Kernel Modules
n/a
o 1.45 No Files or Directories under /srv
n/a
o 1.46 Bundling of multiple projects
n/a
o 1.47 All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment
ok
o 1.48 Application Specific Guidelines
n/a
RPMLINT ==
ant-findbugs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving,
Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases,
Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering,
Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia,
Applications/Productivity, Applications/Publishing, Applications/System,
Applications/Text, Development/Debug, Development/Debuggers,
Development/Languages, Development/Libraries, Development/System,
Development/Tools, Documentation, System Environment/Base, System
Environment/Daemons, System Environment/Kernel, System
Environment/Libraries, System Environment/Shells, User
Interface/Desktops, User Interface/X, User Interface/X Hardware Support.
findbugs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/findbugs-1.3.7/doc/manual_ja.xml
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.
findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar
The META-INF/MANIFEST.MF file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path.
These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work,
they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises.
findbugs.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/findbugs-tools.jar
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
findbugs.src: W: non-coherent-filename findbugs-1.3.7-2.src.rpm
findbugs-1.3.7-2.fc10.src.rpm
The file which contains the package should be named
NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.ARCH.rpm.
findbugs-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
Amusements/Games, Amusements/Graphics, Applications/Archiving,
Applications/Communications, Applications/Databases,
Applications/Editors, Applications/Emulators, Applications/Engineering,
Applications/File, Applications/Internet, Applications/Multimedia,
Applications/Productivity,
[Bug 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #5 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-03-04 10:56:03 EDT --- Hi, Please fix all rpmlint issues and everything marked with . Thanks! -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-04 14:39:42 EDT --- I'm largely sure that one line per Requires/BuildRequires isn't in the guidelines :) -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #7 from Lillian Angel lan...@redhat.com 2009-03-04 14:45:48 EDT --- True. I should have mentioned that it is a preference, and makes things much clearer. If leaving them on one line is what the author prefers, that is fine by me. Possibly adding comments to explain the grouping would be good. I won't reject the package based on that. -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-02-10 12:23:14 EDT --- I made a couple of minor tweaks to deal with updated packages on F-10/Rawhide: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-2.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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Bug 464014 depends on bug 464013, which changed state. Bug 464013 Summary: Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-01-03 00:21:04 EDT --- Updated to version 1.3.7: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-1.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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Jerry James [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||475603 -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 --- Comment #1 from Jerry James [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-09 17:06:39 EDT --- Updated to version 1.3.6: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.6-1.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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Jerry James [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||464013 -- 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 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code
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=464014 Jerry James [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||464016 -- 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
