Bug 252082

Summary: Review Request: jarjar - Jar Jar Links
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Vivek Lakshmanan <viveklak>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Colin Walters <walters>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: cse.cem+redhatbugz, fedora-package-review, notting, walters
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://tonicsystems.com/products/jarjar/
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-09-03 17:34:54 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-08-13 21:46:58 UTC
Spec URL: http://vivekl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jarjar.spec
SRPM URL: http://vivekl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.1.fc8.src.rpm

Jar Jar Links is a utility that makes it easy to repackage Java
libraries and embed them into your own distribution. This is
useful for two reasons:
You can easily ship a single jar file with no external dependencies.
You can avoid problems where your library depends on a specific
version of a library, which may conflict with the dependencies of
another library.
Needed for supporting application servers

Comment 1 Colin Walters 2008-04-03 00:53:52 UTC
Taking this.

+ Builds OK in mock
* I'd change the %description for the javadoc and manual to be a little bit
better; just "Javadoc for %{name}" and "Manual for %{name} is fine.
* Can we rm -f the shipped jar files instead of just moving them?
* Do we really need the %pre/%post for the javadoc?  I don't see that in the
current Java guidelines.

Comment 2 Rakesh Pandit 2008-09-03 16:42:15 UTC
@Vivek & @Colin

Are you folks still interested in continuing this ticket?
This will be closed with in a week - if no update ?

Comment 3 Vivek Lakshmanan 2008-09-03 17:25:21 UTC
I am not interested in maintaining this package anymore. Please consider this particular review request withdrawn.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-02 20:26:00 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 532523 ***