X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Some comments about DJGPP packages of gettext and libiconv
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
References:	<55F5189D DOT 8000700 AT iki DOT fi>
	<4f16f678-cc0f-49e1-a256-c2b9d55dd024 AT googlegroups DOT com>
From:	"Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<55F5CED5.4020708@iki.fi>
Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 2015 22:30:29 +0300
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4f16f678-cc0f-49e1-a256-c2b9d55dd024@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 09/13/2015 09:42 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 8:33:17 AM UTC+2, Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> Noticed that building GCC current development versions (I tried 6.0.0-20150911) as
>> Linux to DJGPP cross-compile now seems to require libiconv header files to be present
>> (tries to use pre-compiled headers)
>>
>> Tried to repackage DJGPP binary packages as RPMs for that and noticed some problems:
>>
>> -  directory names incompatible with non-LFN systems present in latest gettext binary packages
>> (for example gnu/gettext-1.9.4 in gtxt194b.zip)
>>
>> - COPYING and COPYING.LIB files missing from binary packages
>>
>> Andris
> I have updated gtxt192[a|b].zip and licv114[a|b].zip in the /beta and /current directories.  I hope this solves all the minor pending issues.
>
> I have added the COPYING and COPYING.LIB files into the binary packages although I have never done this before for any binary packages.  Those files were always part of the source packages and that was enough from my point of view.  We should come to an agreement if this should change in the future.
My understanding is that binary packages also require copyright information. User downloads binary 
package and he/she must be able to get license information without downloading source package. I'm 
not sure that absence of these files is serious enough to require rereleasing packages.

One may think what LGPL licensed package means fir DJGPP when statical linking is being used. One 
may consider that LGPL is efficiently the same as GPL If one distributes EXE file where LGPL 
plibrary is linked in as far as I understand. DXE may help here however..

Andris

- Raw text -