License name question for io_lib
by Christian Iseli
Dear All,
I'm planning to submit a new bioinformatics package, io_lib, for review
shortly, and am unsure what is the proper license name. I thought
BSD-like summed it up pretty well, but rpmlint does not agree. Here is
the license in full:
=== 8< ===
All files within the io_lib subdirectories should contain the following notice:
/*
* Copyright (c) Medical Research Council 1994. All rights reserved.
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its
* documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
* this copyright and notice appears in all copies.
*
* This file was written by James Bonfield, Simon Dear, Rodger Staden,
* as part of the Staden Package at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular
* Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 2QH, United Kingdom.
*
* MRC disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
*/
=== 8< ===
The package itself is hosted on SF here:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/staden/io_lib-1.11.0.tar.gz
Any advice ?
Thanks,
Christian
P.S.
- Anyone interested to review and/or co-maintain is welcome to ping me.
- I find the package name a bit disturbing...
- this package builds some tools and a static library. There is no
shared version, and I don't have time to hammer one out, but if someone
feels inclined to provide patches I'll gladly take them and try to
funnel them upstream.
16 years
Rawhide is currently F9?
by Mike Chambers
Stupid question time, but current rawhide (as in today) is what F9 will
be spun too? When/what date will rawhide start being F10?
--
Mike Chambers
Fedora Project - Ambassador, Bug Zapper, Tester, User, etc..
mikec302(a)fedoraproject.org
16 years
Heads-Up: WebKit-qt Rename/Move (F-10)
by Peter Gordon
Hi, all.
This is just a notice that in Rawhide/F-10, the QtWebKit bits (formerly
in the WebKit-qt package) have now been moved to be included in the Qt
(qt-x11) package per bug #442200.
These are from source EVRs:
qt-4.4.0-0.6.rc1.fc10
WebKit-1.0.0-0.10.svn32531.fc10
Please reply here or post a comment to the bug report if you have any
issues or problems with this transition. (It's F-10 only for now, so it
should start eating webpage babies once F9 goes out the door and the
rawhide bit is re-flipped.)
According to repoquery, nothing in Fedora yet made use of either
WebKit-qt or WebKit-qt-devel; but FYI just in case. :]
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
16 years
F8 to Rawhide initscripts error
by Mike Chambers
While using yum on an F8 + updates (as of last night) box, and upgrading
to F9 (current rawhide as of today) I get yum erroring out (or at least
a file conflict error), see below..
Transaction Check Error:
file /etc/event.d/rc1 conflicts between attempted installs of
initscripts-8.73-1.i386 and event-compat-sysv-0.3.9-14.fc9.noarch
file /etc/event.d/rcS conflicts between attempted installs of
initscripts-8.73-1.i386 and event-compat-sysv-0.3.9-14.fc9.noarch
file /etc/event.d/rcS-sulogin conflicts between attempted installs of
initscripts-8.73-1.i386 and event-compat-sysv-0.3.9-14.fc9.noarch
Error Summary
--
Mike Chambers
Fedora Project - Ambassador, Bug Zapper, Tester, User, etc..
mikec302(a)fedoraproject.org
16 years
What the status of the unwritten rule "install all device drivers by default"
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Hi all!
In the past we IIRC had unwritten rules like "disk space is cheap thus
install all device drivers by default" and "enable all device drivers by
default in the configs if that doesn't do any harm, as that way devices
will 'just work' without any manual configuration by the user".
Do we still follow those unwritten rules? I just installed a HP
printer/scanner on a system with a fresh Fedora 9 preview install and
had to manually install the libsane-hpaio package to make the scanner
work. Is that intended behavior or would we consider this a bug?
Cu
knurd
16 years
Re: bugzilla package in fedora
by Michael Cronenworth
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: bugzilla package in fedora
From: Mike Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com>
To: john(a)ncphotography.com
Date: 04/25/2008 01:26 PM
> Hi,
>
> Why is there no 3.0.3 package available for Bugzilla? It has been
> available for many months and includes a major update for performance. I
> have searched Google and fedora lists without any answer coming up.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
Anyone on the list know? Seems strange to me.
Thanks,
Mike
16 years