Addressing rpmlint warnings reported here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
cheers, Pádraig.
On 06/15/2011 09:27 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Addressing rpmlint warnings reported here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
cheers, Pádraig.
aeolus-devel mailing list aeolus-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/aeolus-devel
Were you doing separate patch for the license issue?
Thanks -steve
On 15/06/11 18:04, Steven Dake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 09:27 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Addressing rpmlint warnings reported here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
Were you doing separate patch for the license issue?
Sorry I should have mentioned that. I think those licenses are synonymous. rpmlint complains if you put the longer one in the spec file: http://www.redhat.com/a-packaging/2008-November/msg00047.html
cheers, Pádraig.
On 06/15/11 - 10:11:48PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 15/06/11 18:04, Steven Dake wrote:
On 06/15/2011 09:27 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Addressing rpmlint warnings reported here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713320
Were you doing separate patch for the license issue?
Sorry I should have mentioned that. I think those licenses are synonymous. rpmlint complains if you put the longer one in the spec file: http://www.redhat.com/a-packaging/2008-November/msg00047.html
Yes, that's correct. Also see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
(if you search for "LGPLv2" there, you see that it covers both LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1)
So I've committed the patch. Thanks for the cleanups!
aeolus-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org