Re: auctex preview.dvi build failure
David Kastrup writes:
It would appear that you change the files around in order to fit
XEmacs. [...] I have good cause that such changes are clearly
marked as not being the responsibility of upstream.
You have no legal grounds at all. Neither GPL v2 nor v3 requires that
"changes" be marked. In v2, source files must "carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any
change", and that's all. We will do that in a way that conforms to
the GPL and is convenient for us. Unfortunately, I don't think that
is what you want, since it won't appear in the output.
However, I consider it likely that the resulting log file from the
TeX
run (when using the \listfiles command, for example) would contain
absolutely no trace of this being a special version, but rather make it
appear like an upstream version with a strange version number.
That does seem likely, which is unfortunate.
I can see where those changes appear technically necessary for your
version, but I want them clearly marked out.
That's reasonable, as a feature request. It will be implemented much
faster if you supply a patch, since nobody here seems to understand
what's going on with that code at all, while you attest that it's not
onerous for you.
If you don't plan to supply a patch, your request is less likely to
get lost if you file a feature request on the tracker:
http://tracker.xemacs.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta