Paul wrote:

The licence is MIT, which is fine. However, for a user to be able connect to spotify, they have to email spotify to obtain a file which registers them. It also requires a .la file which is against the packaging rules.

Anything submitted for review yet, so we can take a look? I'm curious why exactly the .la file is required.

-- Rex

On 06/28/2009 08:41 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Paul wrote:

...

Hi,

I'm considering packaging libspotify (it's a library for accessing the spotify music service), but it has a couple of problems.

The licence is MIT, which is fine. However, for a user to be able connect to spotify, they have to email spotify to obtain a file which registers them. It also requires a .la file which is against the packaging rules.

Spotify have very little interest in their library, so there would probably be little that they would do to remove this .la file and without it, the package won't install locally.

Any comments or advice on this?

Question: Does this package make any software linked to it work on the fedora legal queue and have an assortment of frogs?

zing!

No. I use properly versioned shared libraries, and have support for Pam.

~spot