I guess we can add a new module to project administration for gnu-specific.
I grabbed the RCS files using the daily tarball, but the modules are not moved yet (Last-Modified: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:30:27 GMT). Is this normal? We also made quite a lot of changes in savannah.el (we already mentioned the fact in savane-dev), so feel free to have a look at it in project administration. I think I will try to externalize the bits of text one of these days, so we can aspell them, and reuse them from other editors. -- Sylvain On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:46:58AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Hello, > > I moved out of the main repository the directories > backend/gnu-specific and backend/gna-specific > > There is no point, only historical explanation, in distributing these > files with Savane. > > I entend to include the gna-specific stuff in the appropriate package > of tha gna's servers debian packages (gna.el will go in > gnapgnap-admins), I suggest savannah-hackers to do the same with > gnu-specific stuff. > > These directories remains (and will remain) in the moved_out module > of the savane project. You can rely on this module, in the meantime > you find a cleaner solution to manage these files, as this module will > probably stay for years, and it existing content will remain > untouched. > > By the way, I entend to make several modification to gna.el that could > be of use in savannah.el: > - first, when it is said to copy the license into a file COPYING, > it is said like it were mandatory that the file is named that > way. It's wrong, it's only an option. What matters is the presence > of such file. > - second, in the same function, the pointer the GPL faq talks about > this COPYING file issue. When I first wrote savannah.el, I > deliberately chose to mention another faq entry (I do not remember > which one exactly) that instead mention why it is important to > include proper GPL headers at the begin of each source code > files. This second issue is the one people usually do not know > about. That's why that the one that should be mentioned (people > have rarely troubles to understand the need to include the full > license text). > > Regards,
