What's with the flamebait subject line? By "flaunting" you accuse people of intentionally disregarding GPL, taking a willful action to go against GPL. Do you see anything published anywhere where such intention is declared? Wouldn't it be better to say "Hmm I'm looking for sources, in compliance with GPL. But I don't see it anywhere, can someone point me to this? If it isn't there, perhaps we should address it in order to stay in compliance with GPL?" Picking a fight by slamming people in a blindsided way is just totally and wholly unproductive. It contributes to the increasingly bad taste people are having with the mailing lists. Cool it and approach it in a more sensible manner please. You'll get the answers you're looking for better with honey than cowdung. Thanks, Bryen On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 10:43 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Seems like openSUSE doesn't bother to include sources anymore for building their packages.
Since no one seem to care about the bug in the spec-file for samba-3.6.3 causing it's build to fail, the fact that perl5.14.2 doesn't build is become evidence of a pattern.
The spec file has a requirement on a package 'db-devel', yet there is no such package.
Presumably it would include the necessary /usr/include/db.h file that defines the dbm_open call needed for perl5 to build as well.
Doesn't this violate the GPL that allows suse's software to be licensed under the GPL?
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org