Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2006 19:38 schrieb Mike Noyes: > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 00:45, Luis.F.Correia wrote: > > > From: Mike Noyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > We need to release source tarballs in the SF FRS with our binaries. > > > > Let's be reasonable about that, shall we? > > Luis, > Fine for now. The FSF hasn't contacted me or any of our other project > admins as far as I know. > > I can see the FSF argument though. How easy would it be to recreate any > of the Bering-uClibc releases in our SF FRS from 2004? > > https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13751&package_id=115 >19&release_id=124474
Mike; it's possible. not as easy as today, cause we finished all buildtool setups later, but all sources (except shorewall, binutils, gcc, uclibc and kernel) are in cvs and *.txt and *.mk files explains how to do. Most important, we do provide the sources (except ...) . And I think Eric Spakman got the point, the only way you can get Bering-uClibc is from a network server - and _all_ sources are on network servers as well, most sources for the 150 plus packages from LEAF cvs, others from network servers like kernel.org or gnu.org. WIth buildtool you just run buildall.sh and you don't have to worry about the servers buildtool downloads the sources. I think we should continue to work that way until FSF contacts us and tells us our interpretation is wrong. I'm shure there are others, who need more massage by FSF, if you look for example at busybox hall of shame. kp ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
