Bug 227121 - Review Request: wstx-2.9.3-1jpp - Woodstox Stax Implementation
Review Request: wstx-2.9.3-1jpp - Woodstox Stax Implementation
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 252110
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Hans de Goede
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-02-02 13:00 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-02-26 19:29:49 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 13:00:21 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/wstx-2.9.3-1jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/wstx-2.9.3-1jpp.src.rpm
Description: Woodstox is a high-performance validating namespace-aware
StAX-compliant (JSR-173) Open Source XML-processor written
in Java.
XML processor means that it handles both input (== parsing)
and output (== writing, serialization)), as well as
supporting tasks such as validation.

J2ME libraries for wstx.

Javadoc for wstx.

Documents for wstx.
Comment 1 Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-08-13 20:29:50 EDT
*** Bug 252110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-08-13 20:30:33 EDT
(In reply to comment #1)
> *** Bug 252110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

A newer version requested for review above
Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2007-09-23 14:54:03 EDT
I would like to review this as I need it for freecol which I'm packaging. Can
you please provide a new srpm based on the latest jpackage srpm for me to review?

Alternatively we could do things the other way I around, that I create the
package and you review.
Comment 4 Hans de Goede 2008-01-04 04:22:24 EST
Comment 5 Hans de Goede 2008-02-26 16:00:09 EST

Vivek, it looks like Rafael does not have the time for this package. I would
like to suggest that we reopen bug 252110 and close this one as a dup of 252110
instead of the otherway around, then I can review your newer package in bug 252110.
Comment 6 Vivek Lakshmanan 2008-02-26 19:29:49 EST
I have reopened the bug. Note that if you are interested in this package I
highly encourage you to take over ownership. I cant commit to maintaining
packages for the next little while,. I am sure there is a way to transfer
ownership of the review/package to you and I would be happy to do the review (if
I am allowed to somehow be the reporter and the reviewer..)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 252110 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.