On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote: > No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that > *use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it. > See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list > based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and libijs-0.35.so. Yes, I saw that after I'd sent my reply. I had assumed the original list was correct, and worked on that basis. > > An interesting side-question here is what license tag we should use for > > an app whose license text states GPLv2+, but which we are linking > > against a GPLv3+ library, effectively meaning that its license for our > > purposes is GPLv3+... > > Yes, indeed. I should probably talk to Spot about that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
