This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

was (Fwd: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?): symlink old tarball name to new one

Dear all,
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 <>
To: 	Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <>
CC: 	Steffen Dettmer <>,

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:

 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.


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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]