[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libtool pre-1.5b tests fail on 9 debian arches

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: libtool pre-1.5b tests fail on 9 debian arches
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:47:08 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:04:55PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Or an even better one, just from build failures in the last few days ...
> upstream placing the contents of libtool.m4 in acinclude.m4, so even
> after aclocal runs the old version is still used.
> One thing about maintaining a GNU auto tools package, you certainly see
> some brain dead practises by other upstream developers.  Do these guys
> not read the manuals? :)

Many of them don't, and we have to live with that.

> > We should start doing that, and I can help. Just requested copyright papers
> > myself (I assume you've already done that).
> > 
> > libtool maintainers: Would you consider giving either Scott or me 
> > (preferably
> > both) with CVS access? That'd help a lot getting libtool in shape for all
> > architectures without having to maintain such a "debian fork" of libtool.
> > 
> I brought it up about six months ago (about the same time I sorted
> through all the patches), I'm quite willing to undergo the paper signing
> -- <consider this a request>.

Assigning copyright and being given CVS access is not necessarily related:

 - If you send too many patches for review without having CVS access, then you
   might consider assigning copyright so that you can send more patches for
 - Sometimes GNU maintainers agree to give you CVS access before the actual
   paper signing process is complete, provided that you agree not to commit
   more code of your own than you're allowed to. (this is my current situation
   with GNU GRUB, for example).

Scott: IMO all Debian maintainers of GNU software should do this as part of
their maintaining task. Please request assigning copyright for past and future
changes to libtool by emailing "address@hidden".

libtool maintainers: On having CVS access, I myself would agree to apply only
non-conflictive patches (such as my GNU/K*BSD stuff) unless otherwise discussed
in the list (I believe the same applies to Scott). If you need credentials,
I'm member of Debian and have already access to GRUB CVS. Does all this sound
ok for you?

> > Let's reopen it.
> > 
> Gary, Peter, Bob?  Probably the best compromise all round would be to
> add something like this to libtool.texi below the current permission
> statements:
> [...]

When I suggested to reopen it, I thought you were referring to the patch
submission issue, not the GFDL stuff.

GNU libtool is copyrighted by the FSF and only the FSF may license it under
additional terms. It's not something you should discuss with libtool's
maintainers, nor something that should be discussed on this list.

Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]