Hello,
according to e-mail from this ML from 2015-06-08 it seems that iprlib.so*
shouldn't be "publicly" available, i.e. not
installed in to the libdir(and/or distributed in binary rpm with headers to
make it available for linking,... etc.). Is my statement correct?
If is, is there
Brian King writes:
> CC'ing to the mailing list.
>
> Gabriel - can you take a peek?
Colin's patches look good, specially this one.
Colin, thanks for the catch on this one!
Brian, they are ok to push but they are going to need some rebasing on
top of mainline.
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
---
- Original Message -
> From: "Gabriel Krisman Bertazi"
> To: "Jakub Cajka"
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:34:11 PM
> Subject: Re: iprutils missing LICENSE in tar archive
>
> Jakub Cajka writes:
>
> > Hello,
> > I have notice that LICENSE fil
Jakub Cajka writes:
> Hello,
> I have notice that LICENSE file is missing from latest distribution tar
> archive(iprutils-2.4.7.tar.gz).
> If I'm not mistaken, this violates (CPL)license it self, as it requires
> inclusion of license text.
Hi Jakub, thanks for reporting this and for the p
Hello,
I have notice that LICENSE file is missing from latest distribution tar
archive(iprutils-2.4.7.tar.gz).
If I'm not mistaken, this violates (CPL)license it self, as it requires
inclusion of license text.
"...
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Prog
