[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] GNU bytecode (was Re: gjdoc in Debian now, what
From: |
Brian Jones |
Subject: |
Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] GNU bytecode (was Re: gjdoc in Debian now, what about javap and javah ?) |
Date: |
18 Dec 2002 15:43:04 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
Alex Lancaster <address@hidden> writes:
> >>>>> "BJ" == Brian Jones <address@hidden> writes:
>
> BJ> Alex Lancaster <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> Just wondering, does this mean that cp-tools is now the canonical
> >> CVS location for gnu.bytecode?
>
> BJ> No.
>
> >> If not, why don't you merge your patch with the kawa project?
>
> BJ> I will send the patch to the Kawa list again and see what happens.
> BJ> Hopefully Per will accept it.
>
> So all has been quiet on the Kawa front, was this reason for checking
> in the local copy?
No, the local copy is so it is easily compilable/buildable from one
location. It is unreasonable to expect that everyone has gnu.bytecode
installed on their system so in this case I imported a free software
library that the tools use into the repository.
> I know I've wasted time on what I thought was the final "real"
> upstream source (CVS or otherwise) of a particular package, only to
> find that it was a local copy, but that it was not labelled as such.
> So I think minimally we should clearly mark it as so, in a README or
> some such (i.e. tell people to not waste time generating patches
> against our version). It's no big deal, but it might prevent
> confusion down the track (especially for any future cp-tools
> maintainers).
I only just imported it yesterday. Yes, as part of the FSF guidelines
the 3rd party software should be clearly marked as such inside a
README. I'll try to remember to do that soon.
Now I'm off to see "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers".
Brian
--
Brian Jones <address@hidden>
http://www.haphazard.org/~cbj/