[Bug 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173


mej at eterm.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mej at eterm.org




------- Additional Comments From mej at eterm.org  2006-08-23 14:57 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hi Terje, I think the rpath error is a blocker (can anyone else comment 
> here?)

That is one of the "stupid policies" I mentioned in the other bug.  There is
nothing inherently wrong with rpath, and blindly rejecting packages because of
it is ridiculous.  Particularly since the paths Eterm uses are NOT WRITEABLE.

The "fix" (I use the term loosely) is to edit Makefile.am to remove the -rpath
parameter.

> Please try to get the license issues sorted out *within* the upstream 
> source since they are a blocker.   If the upstream maintainers clarify 
> things (say, if they put a single COPYING or LICENSE file that makes it 
> clear what the overall terms with--with *no* inconsistencies in the 
> individual files), that would be ideal.

Eterm 0.9.4, which has just been released, has the appropriate LICENSE file to
clarify the situation.

(In reply to comment #4)
> I sent a mail to Michael some time ago, however no feedback yet.

Had I *actually* been contacted about this, I would've taken action sooner.  As
it is, no one who has posted on this bug contacted me about it, nor did the
Debian maintainer or any debian developer.  It wasn't until a USER named Nolius
dropped me an e-mail with a link to the eterm package news page that I heard of
this issue.

Shame on you both.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Its a shame that upstream could not or would not sort out the licenses. 

I did, and I would've done it sooner had either of you e-mailed me directly
about it.

I was e-mailed about the other bug, WRT LibAST, but not Eterm.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.