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=471805 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-17 14:18:05 EDT --- I guess I don't know how anyone is supposed to be able to connect "Dean Mander" with "Rob Loos". Maybe something's screwy with the account system. The package fails to build for me in rawhide: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcJ0ax + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd aespipe-v2.3e + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + aclocal /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcJ0ax: line 29: aclocal: command not found I'm not sure how this could build in mock or koji since you call autoconf and aclocal without having any dependency on them; do you have a link to a koji scratch build I could look at? Also, why do you even need to call aclocal and autoconf? Is there something wrong with the confugure script that's in the package? You're not patching anything as far as I can tell. The licensing of this code is confusing at best. You have License: GPL+, but: md5.c is GPLv2+ aes.c is, I think, "Copyright Only" aespipe.c is GPL+ rmd160.c is GPLv2+ sha512.c is GPL+ And then there are assembler files: aes-amd64.S is BSD aes-x86.S is BSD md5-amd64.S is GPL+ md5-x86.S is GPL+ And then there's aes-GPL.diff, which patches aes-amd64.S and aes-x86.S to allow GPL+ licenses, but I'm not really sure of either why this would be needed (3-clause BSD is already GPL compatible) or whether its reasonable to make licensing changes this way. My take is that the whole thing, once compiled, GPLv2+, but I think it would help if Legal verified that. -- 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