Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Blake wrote: >> Would it still be possible to keep symlink development (yes, that means >> during development, the linked files bear a looser license than necessary, >> but only on the developer's machine), so long as a maintainer-check >> guarantees a fresh gnulib checkout with proper licenses at 'make dist' >> time (so that the tarball has the correct license)? > > This sounds like a good compromise. If a developer never makes releases > of a particular package, this approach causes no trouble to him. If a > developer is a maintainer, he only has to remember to tell gnulib-tool > to update the copyright notices during the last gnulib import before the > release. > > I'm adding this patch to gnulib-tool. It should be complemented by some > patch to build-aux/bootstrap and coreutils/Makefile.maint.
At first, this approach sounds ok, but then consider what it means: You prepare everything for a release, test to your heart's content, and then at release time you rerun gnulib-tool to update copyright notices. Unfortunately, that might also pull in other (untested) changes. Of course, we can control that, but it is a potential source of trouble. I'm inclined to stick with the status quo unless there's a very strong argument for changing.
