Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 5/4/05, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Make sure you include the RFE to distribute zlib.h and zconf.h with rpm too.
You don't consider the patched zlib source in the srpm for rpm a
modified source distribution of zlib? Seems to me that zlib.h and
zconf.h as distributed in the rpm srpm falls inside the scenario laid
on in the zlib faq for modified source distributions... making any
such RFE unecessarily.
No real point in arguing about this legal hair-splitting in the lists.
I'm sure this minor license compliance issue with regard to how zlib
is maintained as part of the rpm sourcecode base will cross paths with
a redhat legal rep at some point if it hasn't already happened. The
only question I have is, if the version string in the zlib.h inside
the rpm codebase is changed does that have a technical impact on any
codebase that is currently interacting with rpm?
No interaction is possible unless zlib.h and zconf.h are distributed.
Hence the RFE ...
73 de Jeff
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
