Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-08 16:49:11 EDT --- Sorry to take so long replying. Fallout at work from the Thanksgiving holiday has kept me pretty busy recently. I'm not entirely convinced this package should exist either. In fact, I carried an unofficial RPM of findbugs on my fedorapeople web site for about a year that included a patch to make it use standard BCEL. However, the patch broke with every single new release of findbugs. That's why I finally gave up and packaged the modified BCEL for submission to Fedora. Note also that jpackage recently released this package as well (their SPEC file was developed independently from mine). They are calling it BCEL version 5.3, which I think is a bad idea. This should be marked as a modified version of BCEL, not a later version. As for the groups, in the first place, Fedora leaders are on record as saying that the Group tags no longer have any relevance. The comps.xml files are now the deciding factor for categorizing packages. In the second place, try these two queries: rpm -q -g Development/Libraries/Java rpm -q -g Development/Documentation There are quite a few packages using those groups already. For these two reasons, I believe the Group tags are fine. Thanks for looking at this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review