Le 5 juin 2012 à 12:12, Jim Meyering a écrit :
> Good idea. This has burned even me ;-)
> Please commit.
EPERM.
Akim Demaille wrote:
> I have been trying to follow README-release as a guide
> for releasing Bison, unfortunately step after step I
> discovered that I needed modules that were not requested
> by Bison. It seems sane that if you want README-alpha,
> you also want the tools it promotes.
Good idea
I have been trying to follow README-release as a guide
for releasing Bison, unfortunately step after step I
discovered that I needed modules that were not requested
by Bison. It seems sane that if you want README-alpha,
you also want the tools it promotes.
0001-readme-release-require-the-promot
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 5 June 2012 08:44, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> I suppose you know that module is already LGPLv2+.
>
> I did not know that. LGPL is not mentioned in the file.
This is a FAQ (the license section of each modules/ file indicates
the actual license, not the original lib/* files
On 5 June 2012 08:44, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> I suppose you know that module is already LGPLv2+.
I did not know that. LGPL is not mentioned in the file.
> Your request makes me wonder:
> If dummy's license is causing trouble, how can you use any
> nontrivial part of gnulib?
I can't, and I'm not
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> Since this file is trivial, would it be possible to give it an
> all-permissive license? Someone has just (helpfully!) pointed out that
> it shouldn't be in a BSD-licensed project I maintain, where it gets
> pulled in by bootstrap.
Hi Reuben,
I suppose you know that module
