On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Christopher Aillon (caillon@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > > the same issue like > > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > > > Nuke them all. > > > > +1 > > I'm glad it got caught, though. > > Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these. Given this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3 ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through their Java-including packages looking for similar issues? Or even just having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to check the code they're entering into the repos? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
