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 #8 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-10 04:51:17 EDT --- Alright, I got a reply from the current maintainer. He has this to say: """ Hi, sorry for the mess. The software is definitely GPLv2+. The discrepancy in the source files is due to my inability to copy'n'paste the right legal blah. I can provide a new tarbar with updated legal stuff in the source files if needed. About: > In addition, this package seems to have a rather odd library versioning > convention. The usual method is to have the library version after > the ".so" but this package has it before. I'm afraid I don't understand why > it would be doing this differently than almost all other libraries. This difference is again not intentional. I though autotools would just do the right thing (tm) but somewhere on the line I seem to screw up setting that up. I will try to figure out where it went wrong and fix it somewhen in the near future. """ In other words, upstream is alive and well and is willing to work with us to get things done properly. -- 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