[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug-inetutils] Re: inetutils ChangeLog doc/Makefile.am doc/inetuti...
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
[bug-inetutils] Re: inetutils ChangeLog doc/Makefile.am doc/inetuti... |
Date: |
Thu, 07 May 2009 07:41:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.93 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:
> doc/fdl.texi is removed below
>
> If I'm understanding correctly, removing fdl.texi seems wrong to me.
> I'm supposing it's created dynamically from a copy in gnulib or
> somewhere now?
Yes.
> But the license can't be updated merely by changing that file. The
> @copying block has to be updated also. In fact, the @copying block
> now says 1.2, but (I'm guessing) fdl.texi v1.3 is what gets pulled in.
Oops!
> I think the right outcome is:
> 1) change 1.2 to 1.3 in @copying in inetutils.texi.
Done.
> 2) keep a copy of fdl[-1.3].texi in the repo.
I've changed so that fdl-1.3 is imported from gnulib instead of fdl,
which just tracks the latest version (which is wrong).
> 3) in the event that the fdl is updated, both things need to be updated.
> I don't know of any plausible way to automate it, and updates are so
> infrequent, it doesn't seem worth the effort.
With the approach I just committed, inetutils will get automatic updates
of fdl-1.3.texi directly. Presumably that file will never require any
changes to the license statement blurb in inetutils.texi, so this seems
fine.
> If I'm missing some sophisticated arrangement which keeps things in
> sync, just ignore me, and sorry for the noise.
What do you think of the current approach?
Thanks,
/Simon