strange source packaging?

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:


> And the GPL requires us to document the changes made - if we have the
> patch pre-applied, with no reverse patch, then this isn't the case.
> Asking folk to go elsewhere to get that 'pristine' source puts the onus
> on the upstream to make that available, which we can't do - for the same
> reason that folk that ship cygwin1.dll need to host their own copy of
> the source.


At the risk of wading into yet another GPL argument -- I don't think the 
GPL requires documentation of the entire provenance of changes relative 
to some external source; it's just the polite thing to do.

All the GPL requires is that you distribute THE source that YOU used to 
build THE binary YOU distribute.  That's it.

--Chuck