This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:33:18 +0000
- Subject: Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140227045011 dot GC14922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20140227132551 dot GO4348 at adacore dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402271845060 dot 27019 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140228085652 dot GI14922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20140228130844 dot GA4893 at adacore dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402281818151 dot 14521 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140303034451 dot GD5934 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20140303041639 dot GA26922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 02:14:51PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> I'll post update-copyright.py separately.
Thanks for doing this, looks good to me FWIW. I don't know whether
we want to keep a single script for both GCC and binutils+gdb or fork,
but probably separate copies makes sense.
As far as including include/ goes: the only reason that didn't happen
for gcc/ was because I didn't want to sort out which files were GCC-
specific and whether binutils, GCC or GDB was the master for each file.
So if we do your option (b) I think we should do (c) as well. I suppose
that means syncing GCC's include/ with binutils+gdb and then adding
GCC's include/ to the list of "approved" directories. I'm happy to try
that if it sounds OK. (Maybe after the 4.9 release, not sure.)
Thanks,
Richard