[Bug 461484] Review Request: twin - Textmode window environment for Linux

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461484


Milos Jakubicek <xjakub at fi.muni.cz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tcallawa at redhat.com




--- Comment #5 from Milos Jakubicek <xjakub at fi.muni.cz>  2008-10-03 04:27:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)

Sorry for the delay,

>  There seem to be a couple of problems:
> - gpm-devel is needed as BR in order to get a functional mouse (at least on C5)

Unfortunately I can't get it working even with BR: gpm-devel (outside of X of
course), I'm still getting:

GPM_InitMouse() failed: unable to connect to `gpm'.
make sure you started `twin' from the console
and/or check that `gpm' is running.
xterm_InitMouse() failed: this `linux' terminal
has no support for xterm-style mouse reporting.

I'll try to contact author in order to fix this.

> - since you package twsetroot, I suggest including (in %doc) the
> README.twsetroot file and maybe setroot.sample too. In the /docs directory
> there are also some other files which seem to have interesting content
> (diagram.txt, FAQ). Do you have a special reason to not include them in the
> final rpm ?

No, I'll include them of course, thanks for hint.

>  And now the real problems:
> - twmapscrn is built against the clients/mapscrn folder which seems to contain
> a private (old and slightly modified) copy of kbd
> (ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/utils/kbd/kbd-1.06.tar.gz), which in turn
> is a system package. As usage of private copies of system libs is explicitly
> forbidden, I'd say we have an issue here

Hm, I just tried to remove twmapscrn and symlink it to the mapscrn provided by
kbd -- and it works. I'll do more tests to check whether it really works, but
if yes, this would be solution, wouldn't it?


> - from the licensing point of view, we have a small mess
> a) lots of files have headers defining them as GPLv2+ (good)
> b) headers of some other files specifu Public Domain as license (good again)
> c) however  there are several files ( for instance clients/threadtest.c and
> many files under /lib  ) which have no license specified. What reason can we
> invoke in order to assume that they are like all the others, Public Domain or
> GPLv2+ ? 
>   In addition to that, the sourcefarge page of the project
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/twin/) claims that the project is licensed as
> GPL and LGPL, but LGPL is only mentioned in the source through the presence of
> the standard LGPL license file; I have not been able to locate any other trace
> of it. Public Domain + GPLv2+ = no problem, but the presence of files with no
> specific license make me ask for help. Anyone more experienced in licensing
> willing to shed some light ?

CC'ing Tom Callaway: do we have to ask upstream to specify license in each
file?

-- 
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.