Bug 3463 - egcs source RPM contains binaries!! GPL violation?
Summary: egcs source RPM contains binaries!! GPL violation?
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: egcs   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 6.0
Hardware: All Linux
high
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Cristian Gafton
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 1999-06-14 19:08 UTC by Chris Evans
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-07-02 21:37:18 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chris Evans 1999-06-14 19:08:25 UTC
Hi

egcs source RPM contains a .tar.gz of binaries of old
compatability libraries. Including libg++-2.7.2.

My concern isn't really the GPL violation, but more the fact
I couldn't debug a f****** irritating bug by building a
debug library from SRPM. I will log a separate bug about
this.

Chris

Comment 1 Jay Turner 1999-06-30 13:34:59 UTC
This issue has been forwarded to a developer for further action.

Comment 2 Cristian Gafton 1999-07-02 21:17:59 UTC
I am not sure what the bug is about. the binaries in the srpm have
nothing to do with building a debugging library.

Comment 3 Chris Evans 1999-07-02 21:33:59 UTC
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
The issue is this: there is a bug in the library itself. I want to
step through the library and fix the bug. I can't because you have
shipped some GPL code with binaries only and no source.

Comment 4 Cristian Gafton 1999-07-02 21:37:59 UTC
The source code for the library that is the default on the system is
included. You can not recompile the older libstdc++ libraries with the
new compilers, so including the source code for that would do you
absolutely no good.

Why don't you debug the application against the libbstdc++ 2.9? All of
the previous versions should be considered evil and bad.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.