[Bug 464013] Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013





--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2008-12-08 16:49:11 EDT ---
Sorry to take so long replying.  Fallout at work from the Thanksgiving holiday
has kept me pretty busy recently.

I'm not entirely convinced this package should exist either.  In fact, I
carried an unofficial RPM of findbugs on my fedorapeople web site for about a
year that included a patch to make it use standard BCEL.  However, the patch
broke with every single new release of findbugs.  That's why I finally gave up
and packaged the modified BCEL for submission to Fedora.  Note also that
jpackage recently released this package as well (their SPEC file was developed
independently from  mine).  They are calling it BCEL version 5.3, which I think
is a bad idea.  This should be marked as a modified version of BCEL, not a
later version.

As for the groups, in the first place, Fedora leaders are on record as saying
that the Group tags no longer have any relevance.  The comps.xml files are now
the deciding factor for categorizing packages.  In the second place, try these
two queries:

rpm -q -g Development/Libraries/Java
rpm -q -g Development/Documentation

There are quite a few packages using those groups already.  For these two
reasons, I believe the Group tags are fine.

Thanks for looking at this package.

-- 
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.