Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:50:50 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: DJ Delorie cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: CVS port In-Reply-To: <200012091955.OAA30446@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Now what I wanted to know is whether it is acceptable to base a DJGPP > > package on development sources (i.e. on the latest CVS-based tree), > > Yes. As long as they're from CVS, they'll eventually become released > sources. Note that this is a personal excemtion I make, and not > normally allowed by the GPL. ?? Are you saying that GPL frowns on releases based on development snapshots? Where does it say so? Whatever sources were used to build the binaries, they would be available as part of the port release, so where's the catch? Personally, I don't like the current trend in many packages to let people freely access the CVS and use that as an excuse for not having stable releases. However, there's an opinion out there, frequently brought up by the proponents of the free CVS access, that a project which doesn't allow such an access is violating the GPL, or at least its spirit. It sounds like you are saying the opposite. > > is it acceptable to merge in unofficial patches (such as the > > 'edit -c' patch that is used by CVSNT)? > > Since you're including full sources anyway, unofficial patches are > allowed. Normally, though, they're discouraged as they make for > maintenance headaches. I agree. IMHO, you should only include such patches if they correct a profound bug, and it would be nice to include the patch itself with the source distribution, so that it would be possible to take it out (with "patch -R") and resurrect the original version.