Le lundi 31 juillet 2006 à 22:14 +1000, John Pye a écrit : > Hi Nicholas, > > I'm with you on the frowning on this practise. But until a segfault in > gfortran.so.1 (gcc 4.1.x) is fixed, I can't build an important package > that I need on Fedora Core 5. Just not possible. BTW will it work petter with FC6 ? > To add a little more background: the troublesome code here is an > optional closed source (but nevertheless very desirable) plugin from an > outside developer. Filing under "proprietary crap" then? > The alternative is to package up the FC4 libfortran.so.0 file in a new > libgfortran package (eg libgfortran0-4.0.2-0.i386.rpm) that is named > differently such that updates to the official libgfortran don't > conflict/replace the special FC4 libgfortran package. That still sucks but is a tad better > That would be > cleaner but then our binary RPM would need to be distributed along with > that additional file. > Regarding legal issues, I'm thinking that distributing compiler runtime > libraries alongside code generated by said compiler must surely be > allowed and not a problem. Never assume anything in legal. One source, one upstream, one license, one package is always the safe solution -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
