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: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433199 ------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx 2008-03-29 10:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #26) > For 2.2.4-5: > > * License > ----------------------------------------------------------- > -License: GPLv2+ > +Release: 5%{?dist} > +# The Scintilla editor plugin is under MIT. > +License: GPLv2+ and MIT > ----------------------------------------------------------- > - Well, libanjuta-scintilla.la is only used by > libanjuta-editor.so, which is polluted by GPLv2+ from > libanjuta.so so the license tag should still be > GPLv2+ only (there is no libanjuta-scintilla.so in rpm). Since libanjuta-scintilla.la is included in libanjuta-editor.so, looking at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines this might be a case of: "GPLv2+ and (GPLv2+ and MIT)". Some of sort multiple-cum-mixed scenario. If that is so, shall we split the Scintilla plugin into a separate subpackage with "(GPLv2+ and MIT)" and leave the main package as "GPLv2+"? Apart from Scintilla Anjuta can use the GtkSourceView plugin for edting purposes. What do you think? > * PKGCONFIG > [...] > - Perhaps the last "PKG_CONFIG_PATH=./PKGCONFIG" (as configure > option) is not needed. Fixed. Silly mistake on my part. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review