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 08/30/2011 05:36 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
Yes, the workload is not minimal, but this was the FSF decision.
Thank you for your quick reply.
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
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).
This kind of URL change is a serial killer for automatic build system/script already shipped.
Is it possible to have simlinks like 'oldername'->'newname'
(as for example binutils-2.21.1a.tar.bz2 tarball will actually contain binutils-2.21.1)?