Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 mej@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mej@xxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From mej@xxxxxxxxx 2006-02-22 23:56 EST ------- Or you could just get rid of your silly rules which discriminate against packages for no real reason. The license is clearly posted in the spec file and in every .c file in the package. The correct procedure for checking the license of a package on an RPM-based system is "rpm -q --qf '%{LICENSE}\n' <package>". If that works and returns a standard response ("GPL," "BSD," "MIT," or similar), there should be no problem. Furthermore, the following requirements are just stupid and demonstrate either pointless fascism on the part of your policy makers or flaws in the design of your build system: > - BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > - The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install The build system, not the individual RPM's, should ensure that the buildroot path is unique and clean prior to invoking rpmbuild. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
