[linux-elitists] Red Hat, crappy RPMS not complying with the GPL?

Ben Woodard ben@zork.net
Tue Dec 2 10:37:08 PST 2003


Strange. It works for me.
Building the kernel rpm is kind of a trickly thing. There may be some
sort of problem on your system which makes it not work.

-ben


On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 08:52, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
> The silly question of the day.  
> 
> I was attempting to compile the SRPMS for RHAS 2.1.  Fun fun.  tetex
> doesnt work, none of the 2.4.18s work, due to RPM breakage. Sayyy:
> 
> MAKEFLAGS=-j3 rpm --rebuild kernel-2.4.18-e.37.src.rpm
> [...]
> 
> + patch -p1 -s
> The next patch would delete the file
> drivers/message/fusion/mptlinux.txt,
> which does not exist!  Assume -R? [n] y
> The next patch would delete the file
> drivers/message/fusion/t10.org/asc-num.txt,
> which does not exist!  Assume -R? [n] y
> + echo 'Patch #2510 (linux-2.5-stack-random.patch):'
> Patch #2510 (linux-2.5-stack-random.patch):
> + patch -p1 -s
> + echo 'Patch #2520 (linux-2.4.18-ipc.patch):'
> Patch #2520 (linux-2.4.18-ipc.patch):
> + patch -p1 -s
> + echo 'Patch #2530 (linux-2.4.20-nethashfix.patch):'
> Patch #2530 (linux-2.4.20-nethashfix.patch):
> + patch -p1 -s
> + echo 'Patch #2540 (linux-2.4.20-acpi.patch):'
> Patch #2540 (linux-2.4.20-acpi.patch):
> + patch -p1 -s
> The text leading up to this was:
> --------------------------
> |diff -u ./bus.c
> /trees/taroon/BUILD/kernel-2.4.20/linux-2.4.20/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> |--- linux/drivers/acpi/bus.c   2003-06-11 15:48:40.000000000 -0400
> |+++ linux-2.4.20/drivers/acpi/bus.c    2003-06-10 14:05:12.000000000
> -0400
> --------------------------
> File to patch:
> 
> Woopsie.  And then you have:
> 
> 
> "
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
> special exception, the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable.
> "
> 
> considering this is considered production code, and that there is a
> RPM binary out there, wouldn't you think that these RPMs dont comply
> with the GPL?
> 
> Feeling picky today, yeah.




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list