savannah-register-public
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[task #15583] Submission of Mu (Miscellaneous Utilities)


From: Asher Gordon
Subject: [task #15583] Submission of Mu (Miscellaneous Utilities)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 12:35:39 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

Follow-up Comment #32, task #15583 (project administration):

[comment #31 comment #31:]
> To tell the truth, I didn't see anything in Gnulib documentation that would
suggest that a snapshot of the used modules shouldn't be tracked by the VCS of
the packages that use them, or that a copy of all modules should be either
included or excluded from the VCS at once.

Take a look at (gnulib) VCS Issues
<https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/VCS-Issues.html>. Here's
an excerpt:

> In principle, all files created by 'gnulib-tool', except 'gnulib-cache.m4',
can be treated like generated source files, like for example a 'parser.c' file
generated from 'parser.y'.
> [...]
> In projects which customarily omit from their VCS all files that are
generated from other source files, none of these files and directories are
added into the VCS.

It doesn't explicitly mention license texts though. Since license texts rarely
change, I don't think the license modules would be useful even for developers
that prefer to include generated files in VCS. I think it would be better to
simply copy the license files. At the very least, these issues should be
mentioned in the documentation. In fact, the Gnulib manual has a section
describing the license modules
<https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/License-Texinfo-sources.html>,
but it doesn't mention these issues.

If you want to continue this discussion, you might want to reply to the
message I posted on the Gnulib mailing list
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-05/msg00126.html>. (If you
do, you might want to copy this discussion for context.)

> In any case, perhaps that isn't the rightest side to look at, and one would
better find out why and when those texts should be included in the first
place.

I guess it's to ensure that every developer (and users that check out from
git) can get a copy of the license, even if they don't have Gnulib installed?
Well I included the license files in the tarball I attached in my last
message.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15583>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/




reply via email to

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