> >>> Or, for the initial bootstrap, just take the generated C > >>> files from an existing GT.M for the bootstrap. > >> Since those *are* source code I wonder whether that might be > >> compliant with DFSG. > > It's source code, right. It was created automatically by using DFSG > > free software by the copyright holders. I do not see any reason why > > this should not be DFSG free. So if the firles are even *there* and do > > not need to be created, why not pointing us to a tarball / patch set > > which enables building from plain source? > > [KSB2] Yes, as human readable source code - even if generated by a script > from a text file - it should be DFSG free. But the devil's advocate > argument is that even if it is human readable C code, since it is > generated from a text file, is is not source code. But if that works for > getting GT.M into the package, lets do it.
Ah, no, I do think that Debian is (sometimes) very picky but the above would be unreasonable. After all it is not at all unreasonable to state "I wrote that C code manually." > However, those files are not part of the upstream source tarball, so to > get the files today, you have to build GT.M once. But not necessarily on a Debian machine. It can be taken from *any* (architecturally sufficiently compatible) GT.M install. > Once you build GT.M once, the files are there and the bootstrap is > accomplished. The plan is to break the chicken-egg problem by using an egg from elsewhere. > Once we get the release out, I'll see about releasing an updated source > tarball with the generated files. But that is a few weeks out at best. I don't see a problem with waiting a few weeks or even months. Karsten -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
