Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-15 17:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #41) > Have you seen this list? > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-August/msg00014.html yes, and read the responses to it. it occurs to me to wonder whether the old tetex rpms ought to be subject to the same treatment. (a lot of packages have changed since then, and we try to guide people towards free licences when updates are submitted to the archive.) for sure, two of the packages mentioned (fancybox.sty and multicol.sty) are essentially identical (though i'm with frank mittelbach in thinking that the complaint about multicol.sty is spurious). (fwiw, if you remove multicol, you should remove latex, since the latex team list multicol as a required package.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
