[Bug 571364] New: Review Request: man-db - Database cached manual pager suit
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: man-db - Database cached manual pager suit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571364
Summary: Review Request: man-db - Database cached manual pager
suit
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: varekova(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/man-db.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/man-db-2.5.7-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description:
man-db package includes five tools for browsing man-pages:
man, whatis, appropos, manpath and lexgrog. man preformat and display
manual pages. whatis search the manual page names. apropos search the
manual page names and descriptions. manpath determine search path
for manual pages. lexgrog directly read header information in
manual pages.
--
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.
13 years, 5 months
[Bug 639278] New: Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured Erlang
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured Erlang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639278
Summary: Review Request: erlang-lfe - Lisp Flavoured Erlang
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: lemenkov(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-lfe.spec
SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-lfe-0.6.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: Lisp Flavoured Erlang, is a lisp syntax front-end to the Erlang
compiler. Code produced with it is compatible with "normal" Erlang
code. An LFE evaluator and shell is also included.
One of the requirements ("soft-dependency") for erlang-rebar
koji scratch build for F-14:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2505856
rpmlint:
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-lfe-0.6.1-1.fc12.ppc.rpm
erlang-lfe.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib
erlang-lfe.ppc: E: no-binary
erlang-lfe.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS
All these messages may be omitted (first one is a false positive due to "lib"
substring in the name of one of the runtime dependency, the rest are due to
fact that arch-independent data is installed into arch-dependent directory)
--
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.
13 years, 5 months
[Bug 554187] Review Request: shedskin - Python to C++ compiler
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=554187
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-12-02 09:57:13 EST ---
At this point I can't figure out why you're not getting it.
"
The source code contains some .c files which are GPLv2+ and some other .c files
which are BSD. They're compiled together to form an executable. Since some of
the files are licensed as GPL, the resulting executable is also GPL. The
License tag should read: License: GPLv2+
"
But you've read that and it doesn't answer the question I think you're asking,
so perhaps you're simply asking a different question than the one I'm
answering.
Let me try a different way. Please tell me which file present in the built,
non-debuginfo rpm, is under the MIT license. Just find one that is pure MIT
with no GPL code compiled together with it. You have to do this anyway,
because when you include a complicated license tag like that you have to say
which files are under which license.
--
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.
13 years, 5 months