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=497622 --- Comment #6 from Tim Fenn <[email protected]> 2009-05-05 00:08:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > > > license. > > > - Stuff under contrib/ seems to be licensed under LGPLv2+, but nothing > > > seems to > > > be packaged from there. > > > > > > > the libraries that are built in contrib/ are lumped into libapbs.so* (along > > with some of the BSD licensed functions) - I've made note of the dual > > license, > > is it sufficient/OK to annotate the .so files as "BSD and LGPLv2+" in the > > %files section and add a PACKAGE-LICENSING file? > > Damn. Then the current packaging is a no-go: you must strip apbs of the > contrib > packages and package them separately. > > At least maloc and pmg have upstreams here: http://fetk.org/ > Argh - OK, I'll talk with upstream, who I believe may be able to correct this. > Btw, you're maintaining PyMOL, right? Yes. > Does it include an own copy of apbs? No - thus the reason for this package. :( -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
