This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
- From: Shea Levy <shea at shealevy dot com>
- To: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, nix-dev at cs dot uu dot nl, rms at gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:58:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
- References: <5845F498-647D-4D81-93FC-CE48F55294B7@adacore.com>
On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
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
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?
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.
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?
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).
Sorry for that.
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