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: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 ------- Additional Comments From ed@xxxxxxx 2006-03-05 17:04 EST ------- Hi Terje, this is not a full review, just a few observations: good: + source matches upstream needswork: - BuildRoot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - rpmlint reports: E: eterm explicit-lib-dependency libast E: eterm binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/Esetroot ['/usr/lib', '/usr/lib/Eterm'] E: eterm binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/Eterm ['/usr/lib', '/usr/lib/Eterm'] amusing: + from the ./configure output: checking for life_signs in -lKenny... no Oh my god, they killed Kenny! You bastards! probably not acceptable in FC or FE: - from the Eterm-0.9.3/src/command.c file: * Copyright 1992 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury. * * You can do what you like with this source code as long as * you don't try to make money out of it and you include an * unaltered copy of this message (including the copyright). Please contact upstream and inquire about the overall license. The vast majority of the code is BSD-style (per Michael Jennings) but the license on the command.c file explicitly forbids "making money" and AFAICT this is not acceptable for FC or FE (that is, folks should be allowed to sell copies of Fedora-packaged software if they desire). -- 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
