Hi,
Here comes yet another status report from the project of converting to
GPLv3 or later.
There are two lists of files below. The first list contains all files
that are in an undecided state. Please inspect: Do we need to do anything
with them. If so what?
The second list contains all files that we can leave untouched and the
reason for that. Please inspect: Are all reasons OK and correct?
Are we getting close to the were an inspection of the xemacs-gplv3
repository could be performed? With the intent that it that is OK we
could merge back to trunk and go GPLv3 or later?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"CHANGES-beta"
"ChangeLog"
"PROBLEMS"
"README"
"README.GPLv3"
"etc/ChangeLog"
"etc/Emacs.ad"
"etc/InstallGuide"
"etc/NEWS"
"etc/ONEWS"
"etc/OONEWS"
"etc/README"
"etc/editclient.sh"
"etc/emacskeys.sco"
"etc/emacsstrs.sco"
"etc/gtkrc"
"etc/package-index.LATEST.gpg"
"etc/sample.Xresources"
"etc/xemacs.1"
"lib-src/ChangeLog"
"lib-src/README"
"lisp/ChangeLog"
"lisp/README"
"lisp/mule/mule-locale.txt"
"man/ChangeLog"
"man/README"
"modules/ChangeLog"
"modules/base64/Makefile"
"modules/common/configure-post.ac"
"modules/common/configure-pre.ac"
"modules/zlib/Makefile"
"nt/ChangeLog"
"nt/Emacs.ad.h"
"nt/Installation.el"
"nt/README"
"nt/Win32.cf"
"nt/lisp.ico"
"nt/site.def"
"nt/xemacs.dsp"
"nt/xemacs.dsw"
"src/ChangeLog"
"src/README"
"src/README.kkcc"
"src/m/README"
"src/s/README"
"src/s/freebsd.h"
"src/s/irix6-0.h"
"src/s/netbsd.h"
"src/s/sol2.h"
"tests/ChangeLog"
"tests/Dnd/README"
"tests/automated/README"
"version.sh.in"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These files below are the files that we might be able to leave as
they are. The reason for why they need not to be changed is listed
after each file: (Some reasons are taken verbatim from private
communication or the "GPL version 3 source survey")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"INSTALL" -> old FSF Documentation license
"config.guess" -> Part of config which is still GPLv2 or later. See "http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config"
"config.sub" -> Part of config which is still GPLv2 or later. See "http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config"
"etc/ETAGS.ChangeLog" -> BSD and GPL v2 or later
"etc/VEGETABLES" -> Not copyrightable.
"etc/XKeysymDB" -> MIT
"etc/ctags.1" -> Part of the etags distribution, which is not part of XEmacs.
"etc/custom/example-themes/ex-custom-file" -> Generated(!?) or GPL V2 or later?
"etc/etags.1" -> Part of the etags distribution, which is not part of XEmacs.
"etc/gnuattach.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1
"etc/gnuclient.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1
"etc/gnudoit.1" -> simple man link to gnuserv.1
"etc/refcard.ps.gz" -> Generated from refcard..tex
"etc/sample.Xdefaults" -> It is deprecated, so it can be removed but is only a three line reference to .Xresources
"etc/xemacs-X.ico" -> GPLv2 or later but there is not meta data for the file where this can be documented.
"info/dir" -> Generated(?)
"install-sh" -> MIT-style "no advertising" license
"lib-src/b2m.c" -> This is the version from GNU Emacs, so should be OK.
"lib-src/config.values.in" -> Generated.
"lib-src/emacs.csh" -> I don't think this even works with XEmacs ("emacsclient"), so I believe we can just delete it.
"lib-src/insert-data-in-exec.c" -> Compatible license.
"lib-src/mmencode.c" -> Compatible license.
"lisp/dump-paths.el" -> Empty file. Not copyrightable.
"lisp/term/bobcat.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt102.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt125.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt200.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt201.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt220.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt240.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt300.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt320.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt400.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lisp/term/vt420.el" -> Emacs version has no explicit license declaration
"lock/.precious" -> Not copyrightable.
"modules/canna/install-sh" -> MIT
"modules/ldap/install-sh" -> MIT
"modules/postgresql/install-sh" -> MIT
"modules/sample/external/install-sh" -> MIT
"modules/sample/internal/install-sh" -> MIT
"move-if-change" -> Identical to GPLv3 or later Emacs version
"nt/Xmd.patch" -> GPLv2 or later but only a few lines
"nt/file.ico" -> MIT
"nt/minitar.c" -> Public domain
"nt/paths.h" -> Generated
"nt/xemacs.ico" -> GPLv2 or later but there is not meta data for the file where this can be documented.
"src/alloca.c" -> Public domain.
"src/depend" -> Generated
"src/emacs-marshals.c" -> Generated.
"src/emacs-widget-accessors.c" -> Generated.
"src/intl-auto-encap-win32.c" -> Generated.
"src/intl-auto-encap-win32.h" -> Generated.
"src/libsst.c" -> Compatible license.
"src/libsst.h" -> Compatible license.
"src/libst.h" -> Compatible copyright.
"src/linuxplay.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like)
"src/miscplay.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like)
"src/miscplay.h" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like)
"src/nas.c" -> Compatible license. (MIT-like)
"src/paths.h.in" -> Generated.
"src/s/openbsd.h" -> Too short. (< 10 lines)
"src/s/usg5-4-2.h" -> Too short. (< 10 lines)
"src/sunplay.c" -> Compatible copyright.
"tests/gtk/UNIMPLEMENTED" -> Does notes need a license?
"tests/tooltalk/beeps.el" -> Too short. (< 10 lines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Evaluating the expression below leads to strange results that are
contradicting the doc-string which claims that "." and ".." would be
removed.
(expand-file-name "/..")
=> "/.."
The good news is that at least this is FSF compatible behavior. FSF
Emacs documents this weirdness saying:
“For technical reasons, this function can return correct but
non-intuitive results for the root directory; for instance,
(expand-file-name ".." "/") returns "/..". For this reason, use
(directory-file-name (file-name-directory dirname)) to traverse a
filesystem tree, not (expand-file-name ".." dirname).”
Their suggested workaround is of course not correct in cases where
`dirname' ends with `directory-sep-char':
(directory-file-name (file-name-directory "/foo/bar/../"))
=> "/foo/bar/.." <<<< WRONG
(expand-file-name "/foo/bar/../")
=> "/foo/" <<<< RIGHT
It doesn't occur to me why it would be difficult to return
(expand-file-name "/..")
=> "/"
and
(expand-file-name "/.")
=> "/"
respectively. History?
Looking at the code I find this comment:
/* `/../' is the "superroot" on certain file systems. */
Is there any file system still in use with this concept?
Thanks
Marcus
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-06-23 - 2015-06-30)
XEmacs Issue Tracking System at http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
570 open ( +0) / 317 closed ( +0) / 887 total ( +0)
Open issues with patches: 13
Average duration of open issues: 2115 days.
Median duration of open issues: 2302 days.
Open Issues Breakdown
new 262 ( +0)
deferred 6 ( +0)
napping 3 ( +0)
verified 58 ( +0)
assigned 145 ( +0)
committed 19 ( +0)
documented 3 ( +0)
done/needs work 15 ( +0)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-06-16 - 2015-06-23)
XEmacs Issue Tracking System at http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
570 open ( +0) / 317 closed ( +0) / 887 total ( +0)
Open issues with patches: 13
Average duration of open issues: 2108 days.
Median duration of open issues: 2295 days.
Open Issues Breakdown
new 262 ( +0)
deferred 6 ( +0)
napping 3 ( +0)
verified 58 ( +0)
assigned 145 ( +0)
committed 19 ( +0)
documented 3 ( +0)
done/needs work 15 ( +0)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Hi,
It seems like from some version of glibc, mid April on the buildbot machine, there is this warning when compiling:
# warning "_BSD_SOURCE and _SVID_SOURCE are deprecated, use _DEFAULT_SOURCE"
I suspect that this makes configure fail at finding "X11/Intrincis.h" for 21.4. In 21.5 we seem to have a completely different way to check for this headerfile that is not upset by some little warnings.
This is, or will be, a show stopper for 21.4 on Gentoo at least. What is the right thing to do here? Go over our code and get rid of or replace the defines according to what the warning suggests or make the configure check more robust when it comes to warnings or maybe both?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
How do you read DOS style files in XEmacs 21.5? i.e. Files with CR LF
at the end of the lines.
I tried changing the `file-coding-system' but that didn't help. There
must be an easy way I am missing.
This is a non-mule XEmacs if it matters.
Cheers,
Sean
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-06-09 - 2015-06-16)
XEmacs Issue Tracking System at http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
570 open ( +1) / 317 closed ( +0) / 887 total ( +1)
Open issues with patches: 13
Average duration of open issues: 2101 days.
Median duration of open issues: 2288 days.
Open Issues Breakdown
new 262 ( +1)
deferred 6 ( +0)
napping 3 ( +0)
verified 58 ( +0)
assigned 145 ( +0)
committed 19 ( +0)
documented 3 ( +0)
done/needs work 15 ( +0)
Issues Created Or Reopened (1)
______________________________
Deprecation warnings in glibc breaks configure 2015-06-13
http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/issue889 created matsl
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson writes:
> I will likely continue to use and maintain 21.4 for myself for some
> time. If someone else would like to benefit, that's fine with me, and
> I can coordinate with downstream package maintainers.
I believe that Martin Buchholz <mrb(a)xemacs.org> is in a similar
situation, though I haven't talked with him about XEmacs maintenance
for years. But he might have patches or improvements you'd be
interested in.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
ACTIVITY SUMMARY (2015-06-02 - 2015-06-09)
XEmacs Issue Tracking System at http://tracker.xemacs.org/XEmacs/its/
To view or respond to any of the issues listed below, click on the issue
number. Do NOT respond to this message.
569 open ( +0) / 317 closed ( +0) / 886 total ( +0)
Open issues with patches: 13
Average duration of open issues: 2098 days.
Median duration of open issues: 2281 days.
Open Issues Breakdown
new 261 ( +0)
deferred 6 ( +0)
napping 3 ( +0)
verified 58 ( +0)
assigned 145 ( +0)
committed 19 ( +0)
documented 3 ( +0)
done/needs work 15 ( +0)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta