gdbm license change

Tom Callaway tcallawa at
Mon Dec 12 18:53:58 UTC 2011

On 12/12/2011 12:08 PM, Honza Horak wrote:
> I like this one, since it seems to be the easiest solution from my POV.
> But I don't see necessary to solve conflicts using renaming library and 
> header files. I'd rather just let compat-gdbm-devel and gdbm-devel 
> sub-packages to conflict (use "Conflicts:" explicitly), since it doesn't 
> make sense to me to have both packages installed at the same time (base 
> packages won't conflict). Then we don't have to change anything but 
> "Requires:" in packages like ypserv.
> Please, let me know if you see any problems when solving that this way.

In general, I would prefer that we avoided Conflicts whenever possible.
The Packaging Guidelines do permit them in cases of compat packages:

However, in this specific case, I'm comfortable with that approach. I'd
like to see this change happen immediately in Rawhide and a rebuild done
of ypserv to resolve the licensing concern.


Fedora Project

More information about the devel mailing list