This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>> 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.
> Thank you for your quick reply.
> The issue itself is interesting. Sounds like much effort and may
> even require undesired things like modifying release tags...
> I though it would be sufficient to publish GPLed files, not that a
> special form could be required (and I had assumed it had been
> sufficient to put them on some public server or even just to some
> CVS repository reabable by the public).
Yes, the workload is not minimal, but this was the FSF decision.