Bug 469894

Summary: Review Request: cglib - Code generation library for Java
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: aaronh, fedora-package-review, fnasser, lkundrak, notting
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-07-31 22:58:10 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449, 534135    

Description Mary Ellen Foster 2008-11-04 11:40:09 EST
Spec URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib.spec
SRPM URL: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib-2.2-1.src.rpm

Description: 
cglib is a powerful, high performance and quality code generation library 
for Java. It is used to extend Java classes and implements interfaces 
at runtime.

Note: This package is loosely based on an existing JPackage package by Ralf Apel.
Comment 1 Mary Ellen Foster 2008-11-05 07:45:32 EST
Updated spec, now builds properly in mock and is rpmlint clean.

http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib.spec
http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib-2.2-2.src.rpm
Comment 2 Aaron S. Hawley 2008-11-06 03:08:51 EST
I haven't done Java packages, but you should probably make /etc/maven/fragments/cglib a %conf.  rpmlint warns:

cglib.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/cglib
Comment 3 Mary Ellen Foster 2008-11-24 09:08:29 EST
Updated to flag maven depmap as "config" and to explain the purpose of the patch

http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib.spec
http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib-2.2-4.src.rpm
Comment 5 Mary Ellen Foster 2008-12-09 11:39:45 EST
Oops, the URL was wrong above. Note that I've also changed to use the latest greatest BuildRoot:

http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib.spec
http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/java-libraries/cglib-2.2-5.fc10.src.rpm
Comment 6 Fernando Nasser 2008-12-10 09:55:34 EST
Can you use cglib 2.1.3 instead?  The 2.2 will conflict with things like Hibernate, JBoss AS etc.

In the meanwhile, I am contacting the communities mentioned above to check if they could certify their software with a cglib 2.2 as well.

Regards.
Comment 7 Mary Ellen Foster 2008-12-10 10:38:34 EST
Oops, I now notice that cglib 2.1.3 is already in jpackage:
    http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=5.0&id=5420

What's the procedure for importing that into Fedora?
Comment 8 Mary Ellen Foster 2008-12-16 07:53:09 EST
After a bit of further investigation, it seems that cglib 2.1.3 depends on a very old version of objectweb-asm. Fedora currently has packages for objectweb-asm (=version 3.1, October 2007) and asm2 (=version 2.2.3, April 2006), but cglib 2.1.3 depends on classes last defined in asm version 1.5.3, which was released in November 2004.

jpackage has a package for asm version 1.5.3 which could probably be imported quite easily as "asm1" or the like:
    http://jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=5.0&id=6304

It's not very satisfying to be packaging all of these old libraries, though ... :)
Comment 9 Fernando Nasser 2009-01-20 11:25:01 EST
JPackage.org will soon have a cglib22 package with cglib 2.2 (which uses the objectweb-asm 3.0) package.  Interested? Can you use cglib 2.2 in place of 2.1.3?
Comment 10 Mary Ellen Foster 2009-01-28 07:56:15 EST
I'd certainly prefer cglib 2.2 -- when the jpackage package appears, will/can a jpackage person submit it to Fedora or should I do that?
Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-10 13:36:07 EDT
So, nearly six months later, what is the status of this ticket?
Comment 12 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-31 22:58:10 EDT
No response; closing.
Comment 13 Lubomir Rintel 2009-11-10 06:04:18 EST
I'm not sure why was this closed, did it get stalled due to lack of reviewers? If it is the case, I can review this (and in any case, you can always mail fedora-devel-list or join #fedora-devel channel at freenode to find someone to review your packages, or exchange a review with someone else).

Mary, do you still plan getting this in? Please open a new ticket with current package or let me know if you no longer need the package.
Comment 14 Lubomir Rintel 2009-11-12 06:25:05 EST
Review resubmitted here: bug #537066

Mary, feel free to steal the ticket/package if you like, I'd be happy if you maintained it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 537066 ***