On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:09:05PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > 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? Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to guidelines) are still within fesco proper. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpHWBLpi6vy3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
