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=499993
--- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit <rpandit(a)redhat.com> 2009-05-22 05:27:49 EDT ---
Reply from author:
========================================================================
Hi,
Rakesh Pandit schrieb:
Hello Mat,
I am packaging dvtm for fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499993
There are some issues which I need to address before this gets accepted:
1. The source files don't have license header information.
I personally don't want to clutter all files with a license header which
is almost as long as the code.
2. The package just contains LICENSE file for MIT license not LGPLv2.
Site mentions project is under both licenses .. so a copy of later will help.
dvtm as whole is MIT/X11 the madtty.{c,h} files are LGPL. I think
it's common for distros to have the full license text under something
like /usr/share/common-licenses I therfore see no need to include it
in the source tarball.
See the following link for how debian handles it:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dvtm/dvtm_0.5.1-2/dvtm....
Regards,
Marc
--
Marc Andre Tanner ><
http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0
=======================================================================
--
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.