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: Java bindings for the libvirt library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453119 veillard@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: Java | |bindings for the libvirt | |library Flag| |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From veillard@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 08:54 EST ------- Oops apparenty I pressed enter before finishing to complete the bug ... SRPMS: ftp://libvirt.org/libvirt/java/libvirt-java-0.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm spec: ftp://libvirt.org/libvirt/java/libvirt-java.spec result of rpmlint: wei:~ -> rpmlint rpms/SRPMS/libvirt-java-0.1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm libvirt-java.src:88: E: files-attr-not-set libvirt-java.src: W: invalid-license LGPL libvirt-java.src: E: unknown-key GPG#de95bc1f libvirt-java.src: W: strange-permission libvirt-java.spec 0600 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. wei:~ -> the strange thing is that if I check the spec file I don't get the same ... wei:~/libvirt-java -> rpmlint libvirt-java.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. wei:~/libvirt-java -> I think I found the error on line 88, %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root) <- that was missing For the invalid licence I'm a bit puzzled... We include a LGPL 2.1 COPYING.LIB and reference it in the source code. I guess then it should be labelled LGPLv2 instead of LGPL as the spec file now says. I have tried to adhere to the jpackage-utils-policy text and follow some of the few examples of existing java bindings using JNI around libraries, but there isn't that much in Fedora (the Java gnome bindings are a bit complex to follow directly), so I had to make a few guesses when generating the spec file. I hope it's okay ... Daniel Daniel -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review