Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Hello Sebastian, * Sebastian Pipping wrote on Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:23PM CET: > > Things I noticed about the new release: > > * The GNU FTP Automake directory [2] holds a .sig.sig file: > automake-1.10.1.tar.bz2.sig.sig . Is this by intention? No, that was due to a typo. Oh well, it was

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Sebastian Pipping wrote: If the FSF handles this problem also putting out a non-alpha-non-beta 1.11 release of Automake before 2008-02-01 I will donate k Euros to the FSF with k equal the number of days left to that deadline, e.g. if Automake 1.11 is released on 2008-01-31 I will donate

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Hello Ralf! First sorry for not replying earlier. Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Second, wrt. to Automake releases: I would have no problem doing a 1.10.1 very soon, using GPLv2+, which however installs the GPLv3 COPYING file into new packages (automake -a), and which has the lzma patch from master.

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Hello Sebastian, * Sebastian Pipping wrote on Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 08:50:01AM CET: > > If the FSF handles this problem also putting out a > non-alpha-non-beta 1.11 release of Automake before > 2008-02-01 I will donate k Euros to the FSF with k equal > the number of days left to that deadl

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Bob Proulx wrote: > There are a number of projects that are also waiting for this > licensing issue to be resolved. Everyone wants it to happen. But the > automake team's hands are tied while the FSF works this licensing > issue out. I can only recommend patience. Let me make an announcement he

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: This wouldn't be doing any favors for non-FSF projects that use Autoconf and Automake, particularly given that such huge changes in licensing are rather not what anyone would expect without a major version change. Right. Indeed, the configure and Make

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

* Bernd Jendrissek wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:40:44AM CET: > > If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, > where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is > an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then > would it be feasibl

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Bernd wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are > > present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. > > If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where > the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an > expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it > be feasible simply to release

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are > present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where the latest rele

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

* NightStrike wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:43:44AM CET: > On 12/17/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > > > > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with > > > > FSF approval). > > > > > > I'd lik

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On 12/17/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with > > > FSF approval). > > > > I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen. > > It's not politically f

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Brian Dessent wrote: >> I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen. > > It's not politically feasible since official GNU projects are supposed > to reflect the GNU project's philosophies. I seem to recall that there > was a mandate that all official GNU projects were expected to use

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with > > FSF approval). > > I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen. It's not politically feasible since official GNU projects are supposed to reflect the GNU p

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with > FSF approval). I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen. > History shows that this could take months, or over a year to work out. I think it's a year already :-( > It is possible

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Bob Proulx wrote: > Sebastian Pipping wrote: >> Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake >> release is delayed because its licensing info has not >> been updated to GPLv3 yet? > > Actually the reverse. Because the licensing has already been updated > it is now delayed. Automake inst

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Bob Proulx wrote: Sebastian Pipping wrote: Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake release is delayed because its licensing info has not been updated to GPLv3 yet? Actually the reverse. Because the licensing has already been updated it is now delayed. Auto

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake > release is delayed because its licensing info has not > been updated to GPLv3 yet? Actually the reverse. Because the licensing has already been updated it is now delayed. Automake installs auxiliary files into you

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Thanks for your replies! As I understood the Automake release is delayed because its licensing info has not been updated to GPLv3 yet? If that is the case I wonder why new code depends on this. Can't you just push the licensing thing to a later release if the responsible people don't have time for

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On 12/16/07, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NightStrike wrote: > > When you do make a release, where will be the list of new features located? > > The NEWS file is the standard location to list new features. > > The NEWS file as currently in version control can be seen here: > > http://gi

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

NightStrike wrote: > When you do make a release, where will be the list of new features located? The NEWS file is the standard location to list new features. The NEWS file as currently in version control can be seen here: http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=automake.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;hb=HEAD Bob

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

On 12/16/07, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Sebastian, > > * Sebastian Pipping wrote on Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:08:41PM CET: > > > > I found out Automake does support LZMA for some time now > > but no release (not even alpha) has been made after. > > We're still waiting for >

Re: Automake (alpha) release request

Hello Sebastian, * Sebastian Pipping wrote on Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:08:41PM CET: > > I found out Automake does support LZMA for some time now > but no release (not even alpha) has been made after. We're still waiting for . Chee

Automake (alpha) release request

Hello! I found out Automake does support LZMA for some time now but no release (not even alpha) has been made after. Assuming that the current trunk is not more unstable than alpha please consider putting out a new (alpha?) release of Automake. There is no release for this year yet, would be gre