Re: hello 2.1.91 pretest

"Mark D. Baushke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >../gnulib/gnulib-tool --update > > command from the hello-2.1.91 directory on a Solaris 9 box yeilds a > syntax error: > > ../gnulib/gnulib-tool: syntax error at line 634: `}' unexpected The Solaris /bin/sh doesn't conform to POSIX: $ /bin/sh

gnulib changes to make it easier for coreutils to use gnulib-tool

I am changing coreutils so that it will use gnulib-tool. As the first part of this project I'm installing the following changes into gnulib. I've tried to keep the changes "minimal", but that's a relative term when talking about a change of this magnitude. Please let me know if it causes problems

Re: hello 2.1.91 pretest

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Karl, Of possible interest to GNULIB maintainers, running the ../gnulib/gnulib-tool --update command from the hello-2.1.91 directory on a Solaris 9 box yeilds a syntax error: ../gnulib/gnulib-tool: syntax error at line 634: `}' unexpected U

hello 2.1.91 pretest

I've (finally) put together a pretest for GNU Hello -- ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/hello/hello-2.1.91.tar.gz Since more or less the whole purpose is to exhibit best practices for GNU, I'd appreciate any comments on where things can be improved. In particular, I have not followed recent Automake/Autoc

Re: --version output and license specifications

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > I think it would be awfully dumb to ever make gnu.org != www.gnu.org > again (whether the same or different ip's). I agree. The URLs here are likely to be typed by hand and viewed by users, so the shorter the better, and it doesn't matter that much whethe

Re: --version output and license specifications

Number 1 is of course fully specified and would assume nothing. I think in this case this is most desirable. One resulting problem is figuring out/maintaining url's for other licenses. But I guess that's not exactly our problem, as Paul said. Maybe I will suggest both alternatives to rms

Re: --version output and license specifications

For GNU licenses, it might be simpler if the --version output merely referred to , Ok, I can buy that. So my sense is that what we want to propose to rms is this: hello (GNU hello) 2.1.90 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License: GNU GPL v

Re: --version output and license specifications

Paul Eggert previously wrote: > "sort --version" could output something like this, say: > > sort (GNU coreutils) 6.2 > Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > License: GPL v2 . > This is free software. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent >