So I decided to try upping my own review karma by trying to review some outstanding Java packages. Unfortunately, I seem to have chosen one with an "interesting" issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013
The package in question is "findbugs-bcel": an alternative version of the bcel library (already in Fedora), including a fairly large patch from the developers of the "findbugs" package. There seems to be no hope of getting this patch into upstream bcel (e.g., https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/pipermail/findbugs-discuss/2007-April/001880.html). There was a short discussion on this on fedora-devel-list last year: http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-September/msg00865.html
What's the official policy here?
I guess I should try to find a more straightforward package for my first review ...
MEF
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:16 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
So I decided to try upping my own review karma by trying to review some outstanding Java packages. Unfortunately, I seem to have chosen one with an "interesting" issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013
The package in question is "findbugs-bcel": an alternative version of the bcel library (already in Fedora), including a fairly large patch from the developers of the "findbugs" package. There seems to be no hope of getting this patch into upstream bcel (e.g., https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/pipermail/findbugs-discuss/2007-April/001880.html). There was a short discussion on this on fedora-devel-list last year: http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-September/msg00865.html
What's the official policy here?
Hmmm. This is definitely open source fail.
So, here is my opinion:
If the bcel maintainer is okay with this, and the findbugs-bcel package does not conflict in any way whatsoever... alright. I'm not happy about it, but I don't want to be a pain in a situation that isn't going to be resolved properly anytime soon.
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Mary Ellen Foster -
Tom Callaway