Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2-dataformat-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Data format extension for Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org) to offer alternative support for serializing POJOs as XML and deserializing XML as POJOs. Support implemented on top of Stax API (javax.xml.stream), by implementing core Jackson Streaming API types like JsonGenerator, JsonParser and JsonFactory. Some data-binding types overridden as well (ObjectMapper sub-classed as XmlMapper). Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5617313
I' ll take this.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
Created attachment 775712 [details] build.log exposing failed tests There are lots of failures during maven-tests: Tests run: 99, Failures: 33, Errors: 8, Skipped: 0 build.log attached. Fix them, please. I'll take another run afterwards.
These failure should be casued by wrong woodstox-core version (required 4.1.5, available f19 4.1.2, rawhide 4.2.0) regards
The build.log is from a rawhide-mock-build, so version should be 4.2.0. I think, there's some incompatibility then?
yes, i think so... unfortunately...
You should report that problem to upstream,then. I set whiteboard to "NotReady". When there's a new working version from upstream (or by possibly applied patches), you can upload it then and remove the tag.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - disables the failed tests reported to upstream: https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-xml/issues/69
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5631134
Can we proceed with the review? It's a required package for upgrading WildFly and is currently blocking the progress.
Hi Gil! Sorry for the delay here. Package looks good so far. Just a few things to discuss before granting review :) ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson- dataformat-xml-javadoc ---> package is noarch, doc-pkg doesn't need to have requires on main pkg [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> see comments below... [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/985232-jackson- dataformat-xml/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag seems legit. :) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. ---> Why do you put "README.md release-notes/*" in main-pkg instead of doc-pkg? [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ---> There's a patch for testsuite. No comments about it or any link to upstream bz. What is this this about? [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> testsuite is run during maven-build [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). ---> minor diff, no changes to process, but although please provide some updated spec / srpm WITHOUT diffs. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc-2.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc jackson-dataformat-xml jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> false positives, IGNORED Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/985232-jackson-dataformat-xml/srpm/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec 2013-08-15 09:17:01.672917396 +0200 +++ /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/985232-jackson-dataformat-xml/srpm-unpacked/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec 2013-08-15 09:17:01.932919713 +0200 @@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ # https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-xml/issues/68 Source1: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt -# disables the failed tests -Patch0: %{name}-2.2.2-tests.patch + +Patch0: jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-tests.patch BuildRequires: java-devel @@ -59,4 +59,5 @@ %mvn_file : %{name} %mvn_build +#-- -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true %install ---> see above Requires -------- jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jackson-dataformat-xml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.module:jackson-module-jaxb-annotations) mvn(org.codehaus.woodstox:stax2-api) Provides -------- jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc: jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc jackson-dataformat-xml: jackson-dataformat-xml mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-xml) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-xml/archive/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a82be2fb27df5a07429ef4a5fd27de435a2598df4a5255b2be71b9a3cc7bc6dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a82be2fb27df5a07429ef4a5fd27de435a2598df4a5255b2be71b9a3cc7bc6dc http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 985232 ##### Please explain my questions and fix those small issues about patch / diff in spec/sprm and I'll grant review.
> [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. > > ---> Why do you put "README.md release-notes/*" in main-pkg > instead of doc-pkg? really? all jackson 2,x series have packaged in this mode > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > > ---> There's a patch for testsuite. No comments about it or any > link to upstream bz. What is this this about? there is something of wrong in stax2-api and woodstox-core pkgs maybe stax2-api should be upgraded to newer release available here https://github.com/FasterXML/stax2-api/ i reported a bug, about test failure here https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-jaxrs-providers/issues/20 Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-2.fc19.src.rpm - add sub-package doc - fix inconsistencies in in spec/srpm
> - add sub-package doc Seriously? > Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. $ stat jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm |grep Size Size: 10796 Blocks: 24 IO Block: 4096 regular file $ rpmls -p jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/CREDITS -rw-rw-r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/LICENSE-2.0.txt -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/README.md -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/VERSION https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines | MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. | (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, | but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #13) > > - add sub-package doc > > Seriously? > > > Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. > > $ stat jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm |grep Size > Size: 10796 Blocks: 24 IO Block: 4096 regular file > > $ rpmls -p jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm > drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2 > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/CREDITS > -rw-rw-r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/LICENSE-2.0.txt > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/README.md > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2/VERSION > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > > | MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. > | (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, > | but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). I acutally meant he should move those 4 files into the -javadoc package :) ##### Sorry for the delay here. :) ##### Package is fine. No issues. :) Gil, you actually can move the contents of the -doc subpkg to the javadoc-pkg. That's what originally intended. ;) ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/985232-jackson- dataformat-xml/licensecheck.txt ---> License tag is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson- dataformat-xml-javadoc , jackson-dataformat-xml-doc ---> whole thing is noarch. so this is supposed to be this way. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> tests are run by maven. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc-2.2.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml-doc-2.2.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-2.fc21.src.rpm jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java jackson-dataformat-xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing jackson-dataformat-xml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc jackson-dataformat-xml-doc jackson-dataformat-xml jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing jackson-dataformat-xml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jackson-dataformat-xml-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jackson-dataformat-xml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.module:jackson-module-jaxb-annotations) mvn(org.codehaus.woodstox:stax2-api) Provides -------- jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc: jackson-dataformat-xml-javadoc jackson-dataformat-xml-doc: jackson-dataformat-xml-doc jackson-dataformat-xml: jackson-dataformat-xml mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-xml) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-xml/archive/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a82be2fb27df5a07429ef4a5fd27de435a2598df4a5255b2be71b9a3cc7bc6dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a82be2fb27df5a07429ef4a5fd27de435a2598df4a5255b2be71b9a3cc7bc6dc http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 985232 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### APPROVED!!!
thanks! Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc19.src.rpm - remove sub-package doc New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jackson-dataformat-xml Short Description: XML data binding extension for Jackson Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc20
jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc19
jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
jackson-dataformat-xml-2.2.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.