Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474044 Bernard Johnson <bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 --- Comment #7 from Bernard Johnson <bjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-05 22:31:31 EDT --- Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libzdb.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~bjohnson/libzdb-2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm (In reply to comment #6) > > SONAME libzdb.so.4 > > By doing that, you've created a library that doesn't exist anywhere else. > Anything that would be built with it, would be incompatible with the real > libzdb as released by upstream. It's similar to packagers who invent a shared > library name and version when converting from a static-only package. > > Upstream really ought to be involved in such a decision. The library soname issue has been resolved. I'm applying a temporary patch until the next release. See: http://www.tildeslash.com/pipermail/libzdb-general/2009-February/000116.html > > > The package is licensed under GPLv3+ OR GPLv3 + exceptions. > > So far, you've included the EXCEPTIONS file in the package. That file modifies > the licencing by extending/changing the GPLv3. If those special terms and > conditions are met, the licencing would no longer be GPLv3. I'll block FE-LEGAL and try to get an opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review