no separate javaexec-script module?

gnulib has separate javacomp-script and javacomp module, but no distinction between javaexec-script and javaexec. Does the attached patch to the module description files look correct? Paolo --- modules/javaexec.old2006-09-27 13:39:19.0 +0200 +++ modules/javaexec2007-01-16 08

Re: test modules and license

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I agree that it can be confusing. True. > The practical drawback would be that the --symlink option, in the > coreutils situation, will copy more files and symlink less files. That's a serious drawback, at least for the way I work. When I develop,

new module striconveh

Hi, This will be used by the second part of the Unicode string library: A module for character set conversion of strings with error handling. = modules/striconveh = Description: Character set conversion of strings with error handling, uses i

striconv fix

Hi, The striconv module may fail to recognize a conversion error if the iconv() implementation is NetBSD's iconv or IRIX iconv, and if the initial guess for the output buffer size turns out to be too small. I'm applying this fix. 2007-01-15 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * lib/strico

Re: test modules and license

Karl Berry wrote: > Meanwhile, I'd like to ask about this unchanged sentence: > > The source files always say "GPL", but the real license > specification is in the module description file. > > I don't understand. The README and the .texi documentation of gnulib say that the license state

Re: test modules and license

Karl Berry wrote: > + @item doc/ > + Documentation files are under this copyright: > + > + @quotation > + Copyright @copyright{} 2002-2007 Free Software Foundation, [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > I think it would be better not to state the exact license of the doc > files here, but

Re: test modules and license

Meanwhile, I'd like to ask about this unchanged sentence: The source files always say "GPL", but the real license specification is in the module description file. I don't understand. Legally, what counts is the license in the actual source file. You can't point to some other file and sa

Re: test modules and license

+ @item doc/ + Documentation files are under this copyright: + + @quotation + Copyright @copyright{} 2002-2007 Free Software Foundation, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it would be better not to state the exact license of the doc files here, but rather give general information, bec

Re: test modules and license

> Shouldn't that be 1.2 at least? Is GFDL 1.1 with no invariant sections accepted by Debian? Is GFDL 1.2 with no invariant sections accepted by Debian? As far as I know, yes. More important for a GNU project (seems to me), the GNU standards say to use 1.2. (Of course the GNU standar

Re: test modules and license

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> > + @quotation >> > + Copyright @copyright{} 2002-2007 Free Software Foundation, [EMAIL >> > PROTECTED] >> >> The minimum copyright year surely would have to be adjusted. > > For the documentation purpose here, I think this is

Re: Build failure on AIX 4.3

"Daniel Richard G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Building coreutils CVS on AIX 4.3 with GCC 4.1 ends with... > > BEGIN > gcc -std=gnu99 -I.-D_THREAD_SAFE -O0 -g3 -MT readutmp.o -MD -MP -MF > .deps/readutmp.Tpo -c -o readutmp.o readutmp.c > In file included from readutmp.h:39, >

Re: test modules and license

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > s/ is // Done, thanks. > BTW, was there some convention whether to write directory names with a > trailing slash? It looks a bit unnatural to me in normal text. It makes clear that the text is talking about a directory. (*) > Hmm, standards.texi seems silent about this

Re: iconv modules

Simon Josefsson wrote on 2006-12-28: > > iconvme::iconv_string -> str_iconv > > iconvme::iconv_alloc -> str_cd_iconv (with reversed arguments) > > I looked into this now, for libidn, and it seems the move to striconv > will add some additional dependencies: striconv depends on > c-strcasecmp w

Re: test modules and license

Hello Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 12:19:48PM CET: > > > + More precisely, the license specification is in the module description > + file applies to the files in @file{lib/} and @file{build-aux/}. Different > + licenses apply to files in special directories: s/ is //

Re: test modules and license

Paul Eggert wrote: > > The argument for making it LGPL is that an LGPLed package can include > > them without making a complicated license statement like "the library > > source is under LGPL, the testsuite under GPL, and the doc under GFDL". > > I'm afraid we've already lost that battle as far as

Re: new module fchdir

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Following Jim's and Paul's ideas for portability of the coreutils to > BeOS, Woe32 and DJGPP, which all lack an fchdir(), here is a first working > fchdir module. > > The module installs wrappers around open(), close(), opendir(), closedir(), > dup(), dup2(