On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 06:39:56PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> >I've corrected license declaration at sharutils package:
>>
>> Why do we even bother shipping an old obsoleted [.]
>
> ... a
Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) said:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 06:39:56PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 May 2013, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > >I've corrected license declaration at sharutils package:
> >
> > Why do we even bother shipping an old obsoleted [.]
>
> ... and I thou
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 06:39:56PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >I've corrected license declaration at sharutils package:
>
> Why do we even bother shipping an old obsoleted [.]
... and I thought you were talking about sharutils :-)
Should we really d
On Wednesday 29 May 2013 19:36:31 Tom Tromey wrote:
> Paul> "convert all info pages to proper man pages and obsolete: the info
> Paul> package."
>
> Man pages aren't really a replacement for info. Replacing info with
> HTML would be more reasonable,...
There's no need to convert input format in
Paul> "convert all info pages to proper man pages and obsolete: the info
Paul> package."
Man pages aren't really a replacement for info. Replacing info with
HTML would be more reasonable, but would be a significant step backward
in usability for Emacs users and perhaps others. This is solvable,
Paul Wouters wrote:
> Why do we even bother shipping an old obsoleted documentation format
> only RMS can actually use? In the case of sharutils, we actually have
> what appears to be proper man pages.
>
> Maybe I should add a Feature for F20 :
>
> "convert all info pages to proper man pages and
On Tue, 28 May 2013, Petr Pisar wrote:
I've corrected license declaration at sharutils package:
The only effective difference is the texinfo documentation is covered by
GFDL instead of GPL.
Why do we even bother shipping an old obsoleted documentation format
only RMS can actually use? In th
I've corrected license declaration at sharutils package:
- GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ and Public Domain
+ GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (LGPLv3+ or BSD) and LGPLv2+ and Public Domain and GFDL
The only effective difference is the texinfo documentation is covered by
GFDL instead of GPL.
The (LGPLv3+ or BSD) clau
