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=470173 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-09 23:21:56 EDT --- Note that if we only trust the code and docs in the tarball, the license is GPL+ as far as I can tell. If we additionally consult the web site, its GPLv2+. Unfortunately we have to be precise here. Ultimately, clarification from upstream is the best step. An email from them is sufficient; a fixed tarball is ideal but not necessary. Otherwise we'll wait to see what the legal folks have to say. The new package builds fine; rpmlint spews a no-documentation complaint about the -static package but that's nothing to worry about. About the library versioning thing, my concern is that something built against this package will end up needing -devel installed at runtime because the linker won't understand the different versioning convention and will end up with a dependency on libm4ri.so instead of libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so. This should be relatively easy to verify if you have some software which uses this library around to check. -- 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