Bug 252082

Summary:	Review Request: jarjar - Jar Jar Links
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Vivek Lakshmanan <viveklak>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Colin Walters <walters>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	cse.cem+redhatbugz, fedora-package-review, notting, walters
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	http://tonicsystems.com/products/jarjar/
Whiteboard:
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:
Embargoed:
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 Please consider this particular review request withdrawn.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 ***