[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #36 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-11-30 20:07:22 EDT --- I'm going to lift FE-Legal here, on the assumption that this package will use the ASL 2.0 JSON 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #35 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com 2009-08-25 13:03:54 EDT --- The latest findbugs needs mysql-connector-java 5.1.7 or later (supposedly; I'm looking at a potential way to dodge that bullet), which needs this work done first (see comment 30). Is there anything I can do to help move this forward? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|480154 | -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(dwall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #34 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-07-26 15:28:59 EDT --- Ping...where does it stuck? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||480154 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #32 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-05-19 08:42:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #31) ...just forgot: Andrew, would you mind building and releasing json as an update for F9/10/11? It will enable doing the same with jbossweb2 later on, thanks. How would you like to be a co-maintainer? Then you can do it and help out when I suck at maintaining :) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #33 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-05-19 12:08:05 EDT --- Heh...ok ;) Request done in pkgdb. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #29 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-05-15 08:33:59 EDT --- I did build it: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1304544 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #28 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-05-15 08:33:32 EDT --- The JSON package is done (although I may have forgotten to build it ... will check). I don't know about the JBoss JAR. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #30 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-05-15 20:59:19 EDT --- Great, let's move with this review forwards then:) I'd appreciate somebody (probably the reporter;) to make a scratch build again so that I can find out whether jbossweb2 will provide jboss-common-jdbc-wrapper.jar which I need to update mysql-connector-java from a years-old-and-nothing-providing version to current. Thanks in advance. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #31 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-05-15 21:03:26 EDT --- ...just forgot: Andrew, would you mind building and releasing json as an update for F9/10/11? It will enable doing the same with jbossweb2 later on, thanks. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xja...@fi.muni.cz --- Comment #27 from Milos Jakubicek xja...@fi.muni.cz 2009-05-14 19:05:32 EDT --- Any progress on the JSON package? Moreover: will this package provide jboss-common-jdbc-wrapper.jar? (the spec and SRPMs are not available anymore) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #25 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 11:37:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) You are completely correct. Is any progress being made on a JSON package for Fedora (and fixing jbossweb2 to use that JSON 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #26 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 11:46:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) (In reply to comment #24) You are completely correct. Is any progress being made on a JSON package for Fedora (and fixing jbossweb2 to use that JSON package)? I know nothing about jbossweb2 but I figure I can bite the bullet and make a JSON package. After EclipseCon (week after next) I'll have time to do it. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #22 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-02-27 11:54:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) Sure. That zip is ASL 2.0, which is fine. Awesome! Since JSON seems to be useful for multiple projects, would it make sense to package it separately? Yes. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #23 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-27 11:57:53 EDT --- So, the logical followup is that someone should make a JSON package, get it reviewed, then have this package pull out its local copy and depend on the JSON package. This will also prevent odd things like having eclipse bits depend on a JBoss Web Server. ;) It should be a trivial package, feel free to poke me when it is ready for review. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #21 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-27 09:37:57 EDT --- Sure. That zip is ASL 2.0, which is fine. Since JSON seems to be useful for multiple projects, would it make sense to package it separately? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #24 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-02-27 14:56:01 EDT --- You are completely correct. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||overh...@redhat.com Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #20 from Andrew Overholt overh...@redhat.com 2009-01-29 16:39:20 EDT --- Is this Apache-licensed zip acceptable? We have another package that has yet to be submitted for review because it needs this json library. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Elliott Baron eba...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eba...@redhat.com --- Comment #19 from Elliott Baron eba...@redhat.com 2009-01-13 13:51:14 EDT --- I came across this problem with the JSON license before. There is an Apache licensed source zip available from http://www.json.org/java/apache.zip. I'm not sure how it came about, it's not referenced on the main page, I came across it in an Apache mailing list - http://www.nabble.com/JSON-License-td5252908.html. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #18 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-11 16:40:33 EDT --- So, the key problem that Red Hat Legal identified was with the licensing on the JSON code (java/org/apache/tomcat/util/json/JSON*): /* Copyright (c) 2002 JSON.org Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. */ The sentence The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. makes it non-free, as it is impossible for us to abide by that use-case restriction. We hit this once before with a different package, and tried to contact the copyright holder, but he was unwilling to alter the line (changing shall to should would suffice to make it a suggestion rather than a legal requirement). Either this code needs to be removed (from both the source and the binary RPM) or JSON.org needs to relicense it without that sentence. In addition to that, the license tag is incorrect on the package, there is no LGPLv3 code in this package that I could see, all of it is either Apache 2.0, LGPLv2+ or the non-free license I mentioned above. Remember that the presense of LICENSING/COPYING does not signal license versioning in the case of GPL/LGPL. Ignoring the Evil license, the License tag should be: License: LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 --- Comment #17 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2008-12-25 16:51:29 EDT --- Blocking against FE-Legal on advice from Red Hat Legal counsel. I'll get more information after the holiday break. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915
--- Comment #16 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-27 08:19:29
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Here are my justifications for rpmlint warnings. If it's the same
warning/error
I don't list it twice.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.src.rpm
jbossweb2.src:86: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
This file is in /lib on both i386 and x86_64.
jbossweb2.src:145: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp21
jbossweb2.src:173: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet6
jbossweb2.src:174: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet25
The versions are in the names.
jbossweb2.src: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
Fedora allows any Group tag.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps 0775
This is correct since it's a daemon, if we agree on the perms.
Should the perm be 0755?
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/webapps
/var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/conf
/etc/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/work
/var/cache/jbossweb2/work
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/temp
/var/cache/jbossweb2/temp
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/logs
/var/log/jbossweb2
I am not sure how to fix these, or what the actual problem is.
These seems to be ok.
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml 0660
This file contains passwords, so it should not be world readable.
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
# clean tempdir and workdir on removal or upgrade
/bin/rm -rf /var/cache/jbossweb2/work/* /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp/*
This allows the rpm to be removed cleanly, but it's not typical to do this.
What do you think?
Hmm... ff the content of these directories are not cleaned, do they just sit
there and the rpm can't be removed?
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
This uses a variable in case the name of the script is changed, but since NAME
is NAME=$(basename $0), it is fine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-admin-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
Documentation is in the main package.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-lib-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
This is because the links are actually in another package, but jbossweb2-lib
Requires that package, so it's fine.
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
if [ $1 = 0 ]; then
/bin/rm -f /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-collections-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-dbcp-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-pool-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[ecj\].jar /dev/null 21
fi
This is to clean dangling symlinks. Is it valid?
Do they need to be removed explicitly? don't they get removed automatically
during rpm -e?
One thing that's still there is the shell for jbossweb is /bin/sh instead of
/sbin/nologin.
--
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915
--- Comment #15 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-24 10:22:11 EDT
---
Here are my justifications for rpmlint warnings. If it's the same warning/error
I don't list it twice.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.src.rpm
jbossweb2.src:86: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
This file is in /lib on both i386 and x86_64.
jbossweb2.src:145: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp21
jbossweb2.src:173: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet6
jbossweb2.src:174: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet25
The versions are in the names.
jbossweb2.src: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
Fedora allows any Group tag.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps 0775
This is correct since it's a daemon, if we agree on the perms.
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/webapps
/var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/conf
/etc/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/work
/var/cache/jbossweb2/work
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/temp
/var/cache/jbossweb2/temp
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/logs
/var/log/jbossweb2
I am not sure how to fix these, or what the actual problem is.
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml 0660
This file contains passwords, so it should not be world readable.
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
# clean tempdir and workdir on removal or upgrade
/bin/rm -rf /var/cache/jbossweb2/work/* /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp/*
This allows the rpm to be removed cleanly, but it's not typical to do this.
What do you think?
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
This uses a variable in case the name of the script is changed, but since NAME
is NAME=$(basename $0), it is fine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-admin-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
Documentation is in the main package.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-lib-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
This is because the links are actually in another package, but jbossweb2-lib
Requires that package, so it's fine.
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
if [ $1 = 0 ]; then
/bin/rm -f /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-collections-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-dbcp-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-pool-tomcat5\].jar \
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[ecj\].jar /dev/null 21
fi
This is to clean dangling symlinks. Is it valid?
--
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #11 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 11:32:32 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915
--- Comment #12 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 14:06:11
EDT ---
Naming - OK
Legal - OK
Licensing - OK - LGPLv3
No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries - OK, removed in %prep
verify any sources and patches :
* Should the TOMCAT_CFG file be set to /etc/jbossweb/jbossweb2.conf instead of
/etc/jbossweb/jbossweb.conf in jbossweb2-2.1-tool-wrapper.script?
verify that the license stated in the spec file matches the actual license of
the software - OK
skim the summary and description for typos and oddities - OK
make sure that the correct build root is used - OK
ensure that macro usage is consistent - OK
* rpmlint output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.src.rpm
jbossweb2.src:86: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions
jbossweb2.src:145: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp21
jbossweb2.src:173: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet6
jbossweb2.src:174: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet25
jbossweb2.src: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/webapps
/var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/conf
/etc/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/work jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/work 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/work
/var/cache/jbossweb2/work
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml 0660
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/log/jbossweb2 jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/jbossweb2 0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/temp
/var/cache/jbossweb2/temp
jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/logs
/var/log/jbossweb2
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /etc/jbossweb2/Catalina/localhost
jbossweb
jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/jbossweb2/Catalina/localhost
0775
jbossweb2.noarch: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons
jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-admin-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
Environment/Applications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-docs-webapp-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-docs-webapp.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-docs-webapp.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
Environment/Applications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-javadoc-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic
Content
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-lib-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
../jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Compilers
jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api.noarch: W: non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic
Content
[EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm
jbossweb2-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbossweb2-webapps.noarch: W: non-standard-group System
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #14 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-21 15:35:04 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2-2.1.1-7.1.fc10.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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #8 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 08:22:00 EDT --- I tried a rawhide x86_64 build and it builds successfully, and from root.log, these packages installed: DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.5.0-gcj-develx86_64 1.5.0.0-22.fc10 fedora 46 k DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel i386 1:1.6.0.0-2b12.fc10 fedora 12 M DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.5.0-gcj x86_64 1.5.0.0-22.fc10 fedora 132 k DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.6.0-openjdk i386 1:1.6.0.0-2b12.fc10 fedora 29 M I wonder if openjdk-devel get installed on this buildroot randomly. I tried another i386 build, and it still fails as mentioned above. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #9 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 10:27:51 EDT --- Why is it only pulled in on x86_64 when it should be the default on i386 also? Is there really something that requires that explicitly or does it have something to do with comps.xml (or who can we ask)? The larger problem is that we will have to force this so that other archs work as well. There's no consistency in the build roots, so we are always forced to change from JPackage to require JDK6. Since we don't have a better solution right now, I will make the JDK change and upload again. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #10 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-20 14:26:06 EDT --- I'm not sure it's only pulled in on x64_64 because of some explicit Requires: or it has to do with comps.xml. I'm not sure who we can ask either. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #3 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 12:08:50 EDT --- We really need to get the geronimo API's into Fedora. Alternatively, we could update existing Fedora packages with these provides. For now, I will simply change javamail_1_3_1_api to javamail. I will change wsdl4j16 to wsdl4j (1.5.2). Then, jbossweb just needs to be able to build against this version as we don't require wsdl4j at runtime. The jbossas dependency can be removed. The jboss logging sources are bundled along with jbossweb. There is a question as to whether these should be removed and we should be them as an external dependency first. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #4 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 15:16:10 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~dwalluck/jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.1.fc10.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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #5 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 15:43:03 EDT --- I still can't build with the new srpm in mock with rawhide, I'm getting: [javac] 182. ERROR in /builddir/build/BUILD/jbossweb2-2.1.1/java/org/apache/catalina/ant/jmx/JMXAccessorTask.java (at line 42) [javac] import javax.management.remote.JMXConnector; [javac]^^^ [javac] The import javax.management.remote cannot be resolved [javac] -- [javac] 183. ERROR in /builddir/build/BUILD/jbossweb2-2.1.1/java/org/apache/catalina/ant/jmx/JMXAccessorTask [javac] .java (at line 43) [javac] import javax.management.remote.JMXConnectorFactory; [javac]^^^ [javac] The import javax.management.remote cannot be resolved [javac] -- [javac] 184. ERROR in /builddir/build/BUILD/jbossweb2-2.1.1/java/org/apache/catalina/ant/jmx/JMXAccessorTask.java (at line 44) [javac] import javax.management.remote.JMXServiceURL; [javac]^^^ [javac] The import javax.management.remote cannot be resolved and a few others. Does it needs a BR on mx4j or some other 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #6 from David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 16:52:02 EDT --- I built the RPM in rawhide x86_64. What JDK is being used? tomcat6 doesn't have a requirement on mx4j, so I suspect it might be a JDK5 vs. JDK6 issue. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #7 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-19 17:34:02 EDT --- I was trying to build it in rawhide i386. Looking at root.log, here are some of the packages installed: DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.5.0-gcj-develi386 1.5.0.0-22.fc10 fedora 46 k DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.5.0-gcj i386 1.5.0.0-22.fc10 fedora 132 k DEBUG util.py:250: java-1.6.0-openjdk i386 1:1.6.0.0-2b12.fc10 fedora 29 M the java-devel is the 1.5.0 gcj one, so it's the JDK5 vs. JDK6 then? Was yours built with JDK 6? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-18 16:52:25 EDT --- I'll take this one. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 471915] Review Request: jbossweb2 - JBoss Web Server based on Apache Tomcat
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=471915 --- Comment #2 from Permaine Cheung [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-18 17:18:44 EDT --- There are a few BuildRequires in this package that doesn't exist in Fedora, here's what I'm seeing in a mock build: No Package Found for javamail_1_3_1_api No Package Found for wsdl4j16 No Package Found for jbossas = 0:4.2.0 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
