Re: --version output and license specifications

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > I very much doubt we can reliably maintain a url for each version of > each license. For GNU licenses, it might be simpler if the --version output merely referred to , as that will make the output shorter and the instructions for m

Re: --version output and license specifications

License: GPL v2 GNU GPL v2+ ... the + is very important. The important thing is the URLs, not the abbreviations. Yes, clearly there has to be something describing what the abbreviations mean. I'd prefer that to be a url, but it could also be in standards.texi. I don't know if rms wil

added missing file fchmodat.c to openat module

I installed this: 2006-08-19 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * modules/openat (Files): Add lib/fchmodat.c. * lib/fchmodat.c: New file, from coreutils. This was inadvertently omitted in the 2006-08-17 update. Problem reported by Jay Youngman. --- modules/openat 17

Re: --version output and license specifications

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > (Not sure that we still want to refer to the COPYING* files.) I suggest using a URL instead; that's what several packages do now, and nowadays it is more convenient than a file and will explain the abbreviation well. "sort --version" could output somethin

Re: --version output and license specifications

1. there were a standardized, FSF/GNU supported "emit_version" procedure There's a function in gnulib, although I don't think it's a problem for programs to write their own. 2. --version were to take an optional argument that would tell that function It's only a few lines of text. I con

Re: --version output and license specifications

Karl Berry wrote: rms suggested going further. Here is his message (in its entirety): How about if we design a standard way of describing licenses and put the list on the second line. For instance, GNU GPL v2+ would describe Emacs. We could say that GPL-compatible licenses used wi

--version output and license specifications

I received a report from Texinfo users (Helge Kretuzmann and Norbert Preining, cc'd) that the --version output from info just said "GNU General Public License", and that this could be interpreted as meaning GPL version *1*. The texinfo tools' --version output comes from the GNU coding standards. S

Re: CC=cc ./configure or ./configure CC=cc

2006-08-14 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * make-stds.texi (menu): Adjust to changed node order. (DESTDIR): This variable is not specified to the configure script. * standards.texi (Config