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: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-17 11:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #45) > * The 2 files (fancybox.sty and pcatcode.sty) under Artistic v1. Spot: Does > texlive really have to be blocked for this one? Considering these are both > already in the existing tetex packages, keeping texlive on hold won't > actually > fix the problem. Plus, there are still other packages with Artistic v1 files > in > them too. Yes, there are other packages with Artistic v1 licensing, but we're working on getting them relicensed. We're not letting new packages come in with the old Artistic license. Specifically, upstream has removed fancybox.sty and relicensed pcatcode.sty. I think that the texlive folks have handled all of the licensing concerns I found in the audit, it would be for the best if we could ask them to do a fresh tarball release, then rebase on that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
