On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 13:21 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 10/10/07, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually in case of rawhide we probably cannot build the new samba there > > before all packages linking to it which have incompatible license are > > either changed to not link to samba or to link to the proposed compat > > libsmbclient package. > > Or we had a whitelist mechanism in the buildsystem to enforce > metarules concerning what can build against new libsmbclient/samba. > > But Nicolas has stated my murkier concern. If we just drop re-licensed > libsmbclient into place with no enforced technical break like a soname > change or a library renaming, are we acting negligently with regard to > protecting our own users who consume pieces of rawhide to suppliment > F7 or soon to be F8? If the re-licensed code can just drop into place, > are we encouraging users to violate the license at runtime by making > it too easy to use the re-licensing binary in situations where its > inappropriate? Short answer: no Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
