On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 11:16 +0100, Mary Ellen Foster wrote: > So I decided to try upping my own review karma by trying to review > some outstanding Java packages. Unfortunately, I seem to have chosen > one with an "interesting" issue: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 > > The package in question is "findbugs-bcel": an alternative version of > the bcel library (already in Fedora), including a fairly large patch > from the developers of the "findbugs" package. There seems to be no > hope of getting this patch into upstream bcel (e.g., > https://mailman.cs.umd.edu/pipermail/findbugs-discuss/2007-April/001880.html). > There was a short discussion on this on fedora-devel-list last year: > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-September/msg00865.html > > What's the official policy here? Hmmm. This is definitely open source fail. So, here is my opinion: If the bcel maintainer is okay with this, and the findbugs-bcel package does not conflict in any way whatsoever... alright. I'm not happy about it, but I don't want to be a pain in a situation that isn't going to be resolved properly anytime soon. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
