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=461484 Milos Jakubicek <xjakub@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Milos Jakubicek <xjakub@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-03 04:27:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Sorry for the delay, > There seem to be a couple of problems: > - gpm-devel is needed as BR in order to get a functional mouse (at least on C5) Unfortunately I can't get it working even with BR: gpm-devel (outside of X of course), I'm still getting: GPM_InitMouse() failed: unable to connect to `gpm'. make sure you started `twin' from the console and/or check that `gpm' is running. xterm_InitMouse() failed: this `linux' terminal has no support for xterm-style mouse reporting. I'll try to contact author in order to fix this. > - since you package twsetroot, I suggest including (in %doc) the > README.twsetroot file and maybe setroot.sample too. In the /docs directory > there are also some other files which seem to have interesting content > (diagram.txt, FAQ). Do you have a special reason to not include them in the > final rpm ? No, I'll include them of course, thanks for hint. > And now the real problems: > - twmapscrn is built against the clients/mapscrn folder which seems to contain > a private (old and slightly modified) copy of kbd > (ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/utils/kbd/kbd-1.06.tar.gz), which in turn > is a system package. As usage of private copies of system libs is explicitly > forbidden, I'd say we have an issue here Hm, I just tried to remove twmapscrn and symlink it to the mapscrn provided by kbd -- and it works. I'll do more tests to check whether it really works, but if yes, this would be solution, wouldn't it? > - from the licensing point of view, we have a small mess > a) lots of files have headers defining them as GPLv2+ (good) > b) headers of some other files specifu Public Domain as license (good again) > c) however there are several files ( for instance clients/threadtest.c and > many files under /lib ) which have no license specified. What reason can we > invoke in order to assume that they are like all the others, Public Domain or > GPLv2+ ? > In addition to that, the sourcefarge page of the project > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/twin/) claims that the project is licensed as > GPL and LGPL, but LGPL is only mentioned in the source through the presence of > the standard LGPL license file; I have not been able to locate any other trace > of it. Public Domain + GPLv2+ = no problem, but the presence of files with no > specific license make me ask for help. Anyone more experienced in licensing > willing to shed some light ? CC'ing Tom Callaway: do we have to ask upstream to specify license in each file? -- 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