On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:04:24PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>found 181378 2.5.1.ds2-1
>thanks
>
>* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]:
>
>> * Removed 64-egf-speedup.patch, 65-dfa-optional.patch,
>> 66-match_icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches,
>> closes: #329876.
>
> Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2
> and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the
> authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them?
Sure, the grep maintainers decided to pull out them and will go
trough the patches again.
I have bcc-ed #181378.
>> * Removed grep.texi from upstream tarball, 50-rgrep-info.patch and
>> 51-dircategory-info.patch from debian/patches, the GNU Free
>> Documentation License from debian/copyright and debian/fdl.txt,
>> closes: #281647.
>
> Still, grep.1 remains, which (a) contains verbatim paragraphs from
> grep.texi yet (b) comes in the upstream tarball with a license notice.
> Does this mean that grep.1 is?:
>
> - under the GFDL, so should be removed
grep.texi is the only documentation file under the GFDL whereas
grep.1 is not.
> - under the GPL (the general license of the tarball), despite
> sharing contents with grep.texi
grep.1 is covered by the license of the tarball which is the GPL.
> - undistributable, because it has no license attached
I don't think so. If grep.1 is undistributable so many others files
are.
grep.1 is not the only only file without an explicit license. Other
files without an explicit license are:
> Cheers,
>
>--
>Adeodato Simó
> EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
>
>Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, yet he makes gods by the
>dozens.
> -- Michel de Montaigne
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:04:24PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: speedup. patch, 65-dfa- optional. patch, icase.patch and 67-w.patch from debian/patches,
>found 181378 2.5.1.ds2-1
>thanks
>
>* Anibal Monsalve Salazar [Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:47:06 -0700]:
>
>> * Removed 64-egf-
>> 66-match_
>> closes: #329876.
>
> Those patches fixed a bug (and two merged) that had been opened for 2
> and a half years. I think it'd be useful if you tried to contact the
> authors of the patches, and try to fix them instead of removing them?
Sure, the grep maintainers decided to pull out them and will go
trough the patches again.
I have bcc-ed #181378.
>> * Removed grep.texi from upstream tarball, 50-rgrep-info.patch and info.patch from debian/patches, the GNU Free
>> 51-dircategory-
>> Documentation License from debian/copyright and debian/fdl.txt,
>> closes: #281647.
>
> Still, grep.1 remains, which (a) contains verbatim paragraphs from
> grep.texi yet (b) comes in the upstream tarball with a license notice.
> Does this mean that grep.1 is?:
>
> - under the GFDL, so should be removed
grep.texi is the only documentation file under the GFDL whereas
grep.1 is not.
> - under the GPL (the general license of the tarball), despite
> sharing contents with grep.texi
grep.1 is covered by the license of the tarball which is the GPL.
> - undistributable, because it has no license attached
I don't think so. If grep.1 is undistributable so many others files
are.
grep.1 is not the only only file without an explicit license. Other
files without an explicit license are:
lib/alloca.c
lib/closeout.h
lib/hard-locale.h
lib/regex.h
lib/savedir.h
lib/xstrtol.h
po/cat-id-tbl.c
src/dosbuf.c
src/getpagesize.h
src/grepmat.c
src/vms_fab.c
src/vms_fab.h
vms/config_vms.h
config.h
> Cheers,
>
>--
>Adeodato Simó
> EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
>
>Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, yet he makes gods by the
>dozens.
> -- Michel de Montaigne
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar debian. org/ v7w.com/ anibal
--
.''`. Debian GNU/Linux
: :' : Free Operating System
`. `' http://
`- http://