On 08/08/2012 01:58 AM, David Nalley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Wido den Hollander <[email protected]> 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?
0.4.7 is missing the code Edison wrote, for example the API of
StoragePoolRefresh isn't correct which causes a storage pool refresh not
to work.
This leads to hypervisors not reporting the correct storage pool
allocation and size.
Wido
--David
