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 #7 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-10 03:39:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > 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. Is an email from them much better than the front page of their website proclaiming GPLv2+? I've sent the maintainer an email about it anyways and await a reply. > 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. Sorry, I don't have any software around using this library. The goal is to eventually get Sage itself packaged properly, and this is one of the subprojects it encompasses. -- 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