This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
was (Fwd: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?): symlink old tarball name to new one
- From: Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <awg at embtoolkit dot org>
- To: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:51:37 +0200
- Subject: was (Fwd: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?): symlink old tarball name to new one
How about to have the same simlinks to new gdb tarballs name?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:43:20 +0200
From: Tristan Gingold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <email@example.com>
CC: Steffen Dettmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote:
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)?
Yes, good idea.
Done for 2.16 to 2.21.1.