On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:28:04AM +0000, Chris Knadle wrote: >For what it's worth, syslinux-2.04 source is available here: > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/2.xx/ > >This is a list files shown for version 2.04: > > syslinux-2.04.lsm 20-Oct-2011 19:13 3.0K > syslinux-2.04.lsm.sign 20-Oct-2011 19:13 836 > syslinux-2.04.tar.bz2 20-Oct-2011 19:08 309K > syslinux-2.04.tar.gz 20-Oct-2011 19:08 379K > syslinux-2.04.tar.sign 20-Oct-2011 19:08 836 > syslinux-2.04.tar.xz 20-Oct-2011 19:08 257K > syslinux-2.04.zip 20-Oct-2011 19:13 462K > syslinux-2.04.zip.sign 20-Oct-2011 19:13 836 > >Hopefully there's a way of verifying that this is the correct source for >what was shipped with the Sarge images. > >GPL license compliance requires that users be able to get the source for the >binary upon request -- so I believe what's required to handle this bug is >verification and documentation. I'd like to think that can be done with >some kind of errata file placed /next to/ the Sarge images in the archive >rather than having to rebuild the Sarge images themselves.
ACK, thanks for the suggestion. I could also check the files that were in use and compare to the stuff on snapshot.d.o for the dates in question. It would be very hard to rebuild the sarge images now after such a long time, and I've not got much confidence we could make them work... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Since phone messaging became popular, the young generation has lost the ability to read or write anything that is longer than one hundred and sixty characters." -- Ignatios Souvatzis
