Re: [Cp-tools-discuss] GNU bytecode (was Re: gjdoc in Debian now, what about javap and javah ?)

[Brian Jones]

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/