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=461484
Milos Jakubicek xjakub@fi.muni.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Milos Jakubicek xjakub@fi.muni.cz 2008-10-03 04:27:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
Sorry for the delay,
There seem to be a couple of problems:
- gpm-devel is needed as BR in order to get a functional mouse (at least on C5)
Unfortunately I can't get it working even with BR: gpm-devel (outside of X of course), I'm still getting:
GPM_InitMouse() failed: unable to connect to `gpm'. make sure you started `twin' from the console and/or check that `gpm' is running. xterm_InitMouse() failed: this `linux' terminal has no support for xterm-style mouse reporting.
I'll try to contact author in order to fix this.
- since you package twsetroot, I suggest including (in %doc) the
README.twsetroot file and maybe setroot.sample too. In the /docs directory there are also some other files which seem to have interesting content (diagram.txt, FAQ). Do you have a special reason to not include them in the final rpm ?
No, I'll include them of course, thanks for hint.
And now the real problems:
- twmapscrn is built against the clients/mapscrn folder which seems to contain
a private (old and slightly modified) copy of kbd (ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/utils/kbd/kbd-1.06.tar.gz), which in turn is a system package. As usage of private copies of system libs is explicitly forbidden, I'd say we have an issue here
Hm, I just tried to remove twmapscrn and symlink it to the mapscrn provided by kbd -- and it works. I'll do more tests to check whether it really works, but if yes, this would be solution, wouldn't it?
- from the licensing point of view, we have a small mess
a) lots of files have headers defining them as GPLv2+ (good) b) headers of some other files specifu Public Domain as license (good again) c) however there are several files ( for instance clients/threadtest.c and many files under /lib ) which have no license specified. What reason can we invoke in order to assume that they are like all the others, Public Domain or GPLv2+ ? In addition to that, the sourcefarge page of the project (http://sourceforge.net/projects/twin/) claims that the project is licensed as GPL and LGPL, but LGPL is only mentioned in the source through the presence of the standard LGPL license file; I have not been able to locate any other trace of it. Public Domain + GPLv2+ = no problem, but the presence of files with no specific license make me ask for help. Anyone more experienced in licensing willing to shed some light ?
CC'ing Tom Callaway: do we have to ask upstream to specify license in each file?