Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5020D9C4.102@widodh.nl>
References: <5020D9C4.102@widodh.nl>
From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:58:16 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKprHVYk=rS74eCj=XeRuwVfJcRVxAyd6Xzqqf3uTcGetJA8EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: libvirt-java 0.4.8 RPM and DEB packages available
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday my patch for building libvirt-java Debian packages got
> committed[0], so both RPM[1] and DEB[2] packages are available.
>
> Since the licensing for libvirt-java is still a problem we should be able to
> have the RPM and Debian packages depend on these bindings.
>
> The main problem will be how we are going to make clear to our users that
> they have to grab these bindings from a different location.
>
> Do we want to go down this road? Do we really have to?
>
> It would just be a matter of modifying the spec and control file, but the
> main problem would be users who are upgrading.
>
> Wido
>
> [0]:
> http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt-java.git;a=commitdiff;h=8bb094d8c9e5b09d066f60c653d100e22dbe770a
> [1]: http://libvirt.org/sources/java/
> [2]: http://zooi.widodh.nl/cloudstack/libvirt-java/


Let me ask the question:

What is missing if they have libvirt-java but not our preferred
version of libvirt-java?

--David