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 #5 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-15 15:50:57 EDT --- If Permaine objects, I suppose I could go back to patching findbugs to use a vanilla BCEL. But as I said in the original description, that approach proved fragile. It would be difficult to maintain and, according to Bill Pugh, has a large adverse effect on findbugs' performance. The problem with the modified patch appears to be a case of PEBKAC. So my transformation of the upstream patch is clearly too manual, and therefore too fragile. Let's try another approach. I'll use the unmodified upstream patch, mask the failure to patch the two files that do not exist in the source distribution, and remove the unnecessary import of the com.sun.* class afterwards. The failure masking part is also fragile; I'll have to be very careful when moving to a new findbugs version. I'll ask upstream if they can change the patch so this isn't necessary. I don't know if findbugs-bcel or bcel-findbugs would be better, either. If someone has a clear rationale for one or the other, I'm all ears. I completely replaced the package description with one that I think is more appropriate. I am now using the suggested Java-related macros. New versions are at the previous URLs, repeated here for convenience: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-bcel/findbugs-bcel.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs-bcel/findbugs-bcel-5.2-1.3.6.src.rpm -- 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