[Bug 433199] Review Request: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++

[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: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433199





------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com  2008-03-29 10:35 EST -------
(In reply to comment #26)
> For 2.2.4-5:
> 
> * License
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> -License:       GPLv2+
> +Release:       5%{?dist}
> +# The Scintilla editor plugin is under MIT.
> +License:       GPLv2+ and MIT
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>    - Well, libanjuta-scintilla.la is only used by
>      libanjuta-editor.so, which is polluted by GPLv2+ from
>      libanjuta.so so the license tag should still be
>      GPLv2+ only (there is no libanjuta-scintilla.so in rpm).

Since libanjuta-scintilla.la is included in libanjuta-editor.so, looking at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines this might be a case
of: "GPLv2+ and (GPLv2+ and MIT)". Some of sort multiple-cum-mixed scenario.

If that is so, shall we split the Scintilla plugin into a separate subpackage
with "(GPLv2+ and MIT)" and leave the main package as "GPLv2+"? Apart from
Scintilla Anjuta can use the GtkSourceView plugin for edting purposes.

What do you think?

> * PKGCONFIG
> [...]
>   - Perhaps the last "PKG_CONFIG_PATH=./PKGCONFIG" (as configure
>     option) is not needed.

Fixed. Silly mistake on my part.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.