db4 is now updated to 4.5.20 and compat-db to 4.3.29

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 13 Nov 2006 09:00:50 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> Well, the license isn't actually the GPL.  The packaging committee
> (and more specifically, me, when I can find some time) is working up a
> draft guideline on this sort of thing.  Essentially, the License: tag
> is just a hint as to what the actual license is and you shouldn't try
> to include all of the details of the license there, but you shouldn't
> lie about it either.  If it's called the "Sleepycat license" and isn't
> just a renamed or slightly amended copy of some other recognized
> license, then put "Sleepycat" in the license tag and be done with it.
> The license text needs to be included as %doc in the package anyway
> and that's where people with serious questions should always refer.

So is the license tag actually useful for anything, I wonder? Seems to
me it doesn't serve any purpose other than to give rise to ambiguity,
such as the one in this thread.

I wonder if it would be more useful to have a %license macro for the
files section which flags a given file as the license file. Then,
rpmlint and friends could easily flag up packages with a missing
COPYING (or equivalent) license file.

Jonathan