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: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald@xxxxxxxxx 2006-02-27 10:38 EST ------- The CAML light part of the license says "The user undertakes not to carry out any paying distribution of the software." while allowing for cost of reproduction. Don't know if this non commercial clause is too restrictive. The .sos do not seem to have any versioning, mosml does this a different wa? rpmlint complains about several shlib-with-non-pic-code and linking problems like the following example: E: mosml-pg shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmpq.so The listed shared libraries contain object code that was compiled without -fPIC. All object code in shared libraries should be recompiled separately from the static libraries with the -fPIC option. Another common mistake that causes this problem is linking with ``gcc -Wl,-shared'' instead of ``gcc -shared''. E: mosml-pg library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmpq.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
