Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Jim Meyering]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:

> Eric Blake wrote:
>> Would it still be possible to keep symlink development (yes, that means
>> during development, the linked files bear a looser license than necessary,
>> but only on the developer's machine), so long as a maintainer-check
>> guarantees a fresh gnulib checkout with proper licenses at 'make dist'
>> time (so that the tarball has the correct license)?
>
> This sounds like a good compromise. If a developer never makes releases
> of a particular package, this approach causes no trouble to him. If a
> developer is a maintainer, he only has to remember to tell gnulib-tool
> to update the copyright notices during the last gnulib import before the
> release.
>
> I'm adding this patch to gnulib-tool. It should be complemented by some
> patch to build-aux/bootstrap and coreutils/Makefile.maint.

At first, this approach sounds ok, but then consider what it means:
You prepare everything for a release, test to your heart's content,
and then at release time you rerun gnulib-tool to update copyright
notices.  Unfortunately, that might also pull in other (untested)
changes.  Of course, we can control that, but it is a potential
source of trouble.

I'm inclined to stick with the status quo unless there's
a very strong argument for changing.