This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
- From: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <awg at embtoolkit dot org>
- Cc: Steffen Dettmer <steffen dot dettmer at googlemail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:43:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
- References: <CAOBoUnMjy1vDxfC7cbf1u5WCCF2OrjgtTt3RDOHoASrk0Dy5rQ@mail.gmail.com> <5845F498-647D-4D81-93FC-CE48F55294B7@adacore.com> <CAOBoUnNAeBp2xSZ86KXymBXJSL_jwrhxC4XX-U-6LMY7MLx_firstname.lastname@example.org> <1D7FF7AA-9CF6-4B4D-815D-16CFBDC88284@adacore.com> <4E5E8A27.email@example.com>
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote:
> On 08/30/2011 05:36 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>>>> This was a license issue raised by the FSF: some files were
>>>> derived from cgen files, but these cgen files weren't included
>>>> in the tarballs. We were asked by the FSF to repackage all the
>>>> incomplete tarballs.
>>> Thank you for your quick reply.
>>> The issue itself is interesting. Sounds like much effort and may
>>> even require undesired things like modifying release tags...
>>> I though it would be sufficient to publish GPLed files, not that a
>>> special form could be required (and I had assumed it had been
>>> sufficient to put them on some public server or even just to some
>>> CVS repository reabable by the public).
>> Yes, the workload is not minimal, but this was the FSF decision.
> This kind of URL change is a serial killer for automatic build system/script already shipped.
> Is it possible to have simlinks like 'oldername'->'newname'
> (as for example binutils-2.21.1a.tar.bz2 tarball will actually contain binutils-2.21.1)?
Yes, good idea.
Done for 2.16 to 2.21.1.