Question about licence for "boost" libraries

[Chris Chabot]

Yep two other people on the list pointed this out to me earlier today,
but thanks :-)



On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 12:48 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Chris Chabot <chabotc at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Some package i was trying to give a review has a much newer upstream
> > version available, however it requires the "boost filesystem" libraries
> > to function (c++ libs)
> 
> Uhm.. you realise that boot is already a part of Fedora Core right?
> 
> on my fc4  system yum list "*boost*"
> Available Packages
> boost.i386                               1.33.0-3.fc4           updates-testing
> boost-debuginfo.i386                     1.33.0-3.fc4           updates-testing
> boost-devel.i386                         1.33.0-3.fc4           updates-testing
> boost-doc.i386                           1.33.0-3.fc4           updates-testing
> 
> -jef"I don't understand the point of this question."spaleta
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060112/ff9bdf0d/attachment.sig>