Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Joerg Schilling]
> > I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the
> > source before and after the change to see the difference.
> >
> > If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent
> > changes..... it would be easy to understand what happened.
>
> We have removed a lot of _duplicate_ copyright notices from source
> files, as a cleanup. We have not removed copyright information from
> source files; it is still there, just not repeated 2 or 3 times per
> file, as it was in some cases before.
This is wrong:
You did remove _code_ that is intended to keep Copyright/version information
in binaries.
The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original
version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1)
command. I am not aware of a single case in the past 25 years where someone
did try to remove this kind of information.
> Users typically look for copyright notices in documentation and other
> materials that come with a package. (I note that the manpage we got
Do not reason from your behavior on others.....
> And speaking of my local Linux system, let me check for copyright
> notices in SCCS strings. The only user binaries aside from yours that
> embed copyright notices in that way are: iputils ping, netkit telnet,
> tcsh, aumix, vixie cron, gprof, lsof, util-linux pg, xdaliclock, and
> the ncftp suite. That is 11 packages (counting yours) out of over 1200
> installed packages -- about 1%. By number of binaries it's on the
> order of 25 out of 2600 -- again, 1%.
Noce to see that wou admit that nobody tries to remove this information in case
it is present!
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
