Bug 1013752

Summary: [RFE] rename gwt-extension.jar->ovirt-engine-gwt-extension.jar
Product: [oVirt] ovirt-engine Reporter: Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl>
Component: Frontend.WebAdminAssignee: Vojtech Szocs <vszocs>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Jiri Belka <jbelka>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: ---CC: awels, bugs, gklein, iheim, nbarcet, oourfali, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, sherold, vszocs, yeylon, ykaul, ylavi
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: CodeChange, FutureFeature, Improvement
Target Release: ---Flags: sherold: Triaged+
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1172394 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-02-09 12:58:54 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: UX RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1172394    

Description Alon Bar-Lev 2013-09-30 17:18:58 UTC 
jar name without signature of ovirt can be mistakenly considered 3rd party.

if we can rename it it would be super!
Comment 1 Jiri Belka 2014-07-04 14:53:37 UTC 
I suppose this is not OK, right?

# rpm -qf /usr/share/ovirt-engine/engine.ear/webadmin.war/WEB-INF/lib/gwt-extension.jar
ovirt-engine-webadmin-portal-3.5.0-0.0.master.20140629172257.git0b16ed7.el6.noarch
Comment 2 Alon Bar-Lev 2014-07-04 14:56:54 UTC 
(In reply to Jiri Belka from comment #1)
> I suppose this is not OK, right?
> 
> # rpm -qf
> /usr/share/ovirt-engine/engine.ear/webadmin.war/WEB-INF/lib/gwt-extension.jar
> ovirt-engine-webadmin-portal-3.5.0-0.0.master.20140629172257.git0b16ed7.el6.
> noarch

no... the name of the jar should have changed.

I see that in my environment too... it should have been:

 ovirt-engine-gwt-extension.jar
Comment 3 Jiri Belka 2014-07-07 06:52:55 UTC 
so based on #2 changing back to assigned as this is not reality in latest ovirt build.
Comment 4 Scott Herold 2014-10-23 14:31:13 UTC 
This was a fully ack'd PRD 3.5 item.  Was there a particular reason this was moved to 3.6?
Comment 5 Einav Cohen 2014-10-23 14:46:43 UTC 
(In reply to Scott Herold from comment #4)
> This was a fully ack'd PRD 3.5 item.  Was there a particular reason this was
> moved to 3.6?

first of all: this is only a code change, therefore there is no affect on the user whatsoever. 
it really doesn't matter if it lands in 3.5 or 3.6. 

it was fully acked for 3.5, but then failed "QA", therefore re-opened. 
as it was around / slightly after the 3.5 FF already and this was a low priority, code-change issue, I've decided to push it to 3.6.
Comment 6 Scott Herold 2014-10-23 15:51:31 UTC 
OK.  Perfect.  I'll rename the BZ so it doesn't pop up in my PRD35 queries.