Mail Archives: djgpp/2015/09/14/00:06:28
On 09/13/2015 11:40 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 9:30:42 PM UTC+2, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> On 09/13/2015 09:42 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 8:33:17 AM UTC+2, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>>> Noticed that building GCC current development versions (I tried 6.0.0-20150911) as
>>>> Linux to DJGPP cross-compile now seems to require libiconv header files to be present
>>>> (tries to use pre-compiled headers)
>>>>
>>>> Tried to repackage DJGPP binary packages as RPMs for that and noticed some problems:
>>>>
>>>> - directory names incompatible with non-LFN systems present in latest gettext binary packages
>>>> (for example gnu/gettext-1.9.4 in gtxt194b.zip)
>>>>
>>>> - COPYING and COPYING.LIB files missing from binary packages
>>>>
>>>> Andris
>>> I have updated gtxt192[a|b].zip and licv114[a|b].zip in the /beta and /current directories. I hope this solves all the minor pending issues.
>>>
>>> I have added the COPYING and COPYING.LIB files into the binary packages although I have never done this before for any binary packages. Those files were always part of the source packages and that was enough from my point of view. We should come to an agreement if this should change in the future.
>> My understanding is that binary packages also require copyright information. User downloads binary
>> package and he/she must be able to get license information without downloading source package. I'm
>> not sure that absence of these files is serious enough to require rereleasing packages.
>>
>> One may think what LGPL licensed package means fir DJGPP when statical linking is being used. One
>> may consider that LGPL is efficiently the same as GPL If one distributes EXE file where LGPL
>> plibrary is linked in as far as I understand. DXE may help here however..
>>
>> Andris
> I see this becomes a never ending story like DJGPP 2.04.
> I have no objection in adding the COPYING files to the archives but this should be decided fast.
> I have inspected quite old files like bison 1.23 and zlib 1.12 that are 20 years old and we have never added those copyrights files to the binary archives so I have never done it. Again I am not opposing to adding those files but then all libraries like pcre, tiff, png, etc. must be fixed. This will take a week again.
>
> Regards,
> Juan M. Guerrero
>
I guess that script that unpacks both packages including source one, adds missing COPYING,
COPYING.LIB files
would not be too complicated. This way we could avoid need to rebuild all them. It would be
possible to perform rename
gnu/foo-X.Y.Z -> gnu-X.YZ at the same time but would rather skip this step for now.
Some renaming COPYING files may be needed. For example gmp600[bs].zip contains COPYINGv2 and
COPYINGv3 which causes
doscheck complaint.
Andris
- Raw text -