Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
Glynn Clements writes:
It's not clear that a CVS repository and an FTP server running on
the
same host are even "the same place". And, AFAICT, cvs.xemacs.org and
ftp.xemacs.org aren't even on the same network.
IANAL, but my feeling is that different protocols are different
places. I would vocally :-) oppose XEmacs relying on the argument
that on the Internet all commonly used media amount to the same place.
That's not in the spirit of trying to conform.
> BTW Stephen, is there any real reason not to include the two
files the
> crybaby is having a fit over, even if they're pretty much unusable
> outside of a CVS context from what I understand? They can have some
> value as an example, I guess.
Given that the XEmacs "binary" packages are so close to being "the
complete source code" (they may even be so; IANAL, and, AFAIK, neither
is David), adding those files would mean that access to the CVS
repository should be a non-issue.
First, those files are definitely insufficient. AFAICT David is
referring to the Makefile and XEmacs.rules (plus "template files," by
which I suppose he means package-info.in). But XEmacs.rules calls
several Lisp files as well as including at least the Local.rules
Makefile. Furthermore, in the case of AUCTeX, the xemacs-base package
is loaded at build time. I don't see any point in a source package
which doesn't include those prerequisites, although it's not legally
required AFAICS (the xemacs-base source tarball would be available in
the same place).
My tentative conclusion is that the (comparatively ;-) sane thing to
do is to bundle up the whole source tree and call that the "complete
source", which can be used to build a variety of packages.
However, that would be in violation of the "preferred form for
modifying". ;-)
Personally, I'd suggest ensuring that one can rely solely upon
the
argument that the binary packages really do consitute the complete
source code as defined by the GPL,
That cannot be done if the Makefiles are required by the GPL, because
they are non-functional in the installed context. (Remember, in the
source tree, auctex is a child of xemacs-packages, whereas in the
installed tree it is always a grandchild.) The GPL doesn't require
"documentation of the build process", it requires "the scripts *used*
to build the executable." Adopting the "historical" interpretation of
"used" would be unacceptable to me if it's merely a way to dodge our
responsibility to provide full source in "the same place".
I conclude that if the CVS tree Makefiles are part of the complete
source, a separate source package should be constructed.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta