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=459874 --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-10 14:00:22 EDT --- OK, this does indeed build, even on rawhide. (The package in comment #12 failed there due to a libtool issue, but built fine on F10.) Since the license changed, I have re-checked it. The source in the "examples" directory is GPLv3+, not LGPLv3+, but the examples aren't built and so aren't present in the final package. All of the other source is indeed LGPLv3+, but I note a bug that needs to be reported upstream: In libpyzmq/pyzmq.cpp, you see "static const char* pyZMQ_doc" which has, at the end: "0MQ is distributed under GNU General Public License v3\n"; which seems to conflict with reality. I don't think this is a problem for this pachage, however. It seems to me that the issues I had are fixed; there are two new thing that I need to look at: zeromq-python.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/libpyzmq.so zeromq-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libjzmq.so Both of these have regular versioned .so* files alongside unversioned ones, and I don't know all of the rules for these so I will ask. Hopefully this will be done soon. -- 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