On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:58 AM, Shea Levy wrote: > On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote: >> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I missed the information why 2.21.1a replaced 2.21.1. I read it >>> only includes some more files. Where they simply forgotten and >>> re-added? >>> >>> I think I have almost no issue, because I could simply rename >>> 2.21.1a to 2.21.1 (some build scripts assume that the version >>> from tarball equals the directory name included), correct? >> Hi, >> >> I was about to write a message to this mailing list once the process was >> completed but it isn't yet. >> >> This was a license issue raised by the FSF: some files were derived from >> cgen files, but these cgen files weren't included in the tarballs. We were >> asked by the FSF to repackage all the incomplete tarballs. >> > > Hello, > > The servers for the NixOS Linux distribution host a copy of one of the > removed tarballs (http://nixos.org/tarballs/binutils-2.21.tar.bz2). Does this > packaging error put NixOS in inadvertent violation of the GPL?
Sorry, but I am not a lawyer. Tristan. > > Cheers, > Shea Levy > >> As this is a tedious task (and many thanks to Nick Clifton for creating the >> new tarballs), we only repackage the last minor version of each major >> release (ie 2.21.1a replaces all 2.21.xx releases and so on). >> >> Currently only 2.20.1a and 2.21.1a are published. There is a technical >> issue with uploading the old one (that should be addressed soon). >> >>> ps: >>> BTW, removing 2.21.1 from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/ breaks >>> easy reproducibility of build instructions; I really like that >>> here even versions from 1996 are kept. Cool URIs don't change >>> (http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI) :-) >> Sorry for that. >> >> Tristan. >> > _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@cs.uu.nl https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
