gdbm license change

Honza Horak hhorak at
Tue Dec 13 11:43:20 UTC 2011

On 12/12/2011 07:53 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> 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.

ypserv is now rebuilt against compat-gdbm. I'll keep on working on a 
better solution (I like Ville's idea with qdbm, thanks for the point).


> ~tom
> ==
> Fedora Project

More information about the devel mailing list