[Bug 453119] Review Request: libvirt-java: Java bindings for the libvirt library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libvirt-java: Java bindings for the libvirt library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453119


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-07-04 12:19 EST -------
(In reply to comment #12)
>  Well actually, I do as rpmfind maintainer. Seems that 
> Development/Documentation is a classic for javadoc rpms, see:

I think you misunderstood; it's not your choice of Group: that's bogus, it's
rpmlint's complaint about it.  Fedora doesn't care what goes in Group:.  You
could put "flatulent monkeys" there; we don't care.  What you have there is
perfectly fine.

> It won't stay zero-lenght, just a TODO upstream

OK.

> I will look at adding the flag, i'm just a bit vary of adding compiler/linker 
> specifics commands to keep compatibility with other platforms like solaris 
> without gcc.

You can if you like; it's not a big deal.

> Apparently the Java team don't want to specify the JDK used in the spec file
> have only the dependency on the java and java-devel (as well as JPackage) I
> followed that:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires

I was referring to  to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines
which is referred to in the GCJ section of those Java guidelines.

> hum, here we have conflicting informations. The rule to follow the JPackage
> policy is different

Unfortunately the jpackage policy doesn't always work for us, but in this case I
honestly don't know what's up.  However, I can say that if you don't have a 
dependency on jpackage-utils you leave /usr/share/javadoc unowned, so that one's
pretty obvious.  The dependency on the main package is less clear, and I'll
simply leave that up to you.

> wrong, it uses the test driver of libvirt which simulates the existence of 
> virtual machines :-)

OK, then the next question is whether it can be called in a %check section. 
It's a good idea to always call available test suites if possible.  I have no
idea how you'd do that in this case, though, and I'm not inclined to block on it
because I'm not sure it can be done at build time in this case, but please
consider calling the test suite if you happen to know how.

> I updated the spec file at:
> ftp://libvirt.org/libvirt/java/libvirt-java.spec

Thanks.

APPROVED

I'll ask the question on the javadoc dependency on the main package over on the
proper lists.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.