>From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 21:18:55 2007
>
>I did a "grep GPL" on the sources but couldn't come across any.
That doesn't always work as it's not always abbreviated. But
look at testsuite/expect.tests/expect-tests.exp.
I was surprised too but it's there.
>> Also be sure to see if you should update it from the sources (since
>> there may be more info like updated copyrights/dates that should be
>> there). And we may need to add something after the case is approved
>> by legal but I'll forward that to you if we do (but you could
>> look at, say, the automake packages to see what it will be).
>>
>
>Can I leave it open till the legal review is through and what is
>acceptable text is decided.
for that part yes, but if there are updated copyrights and such
in the source you should do that.
>Also it would be preferable to have a
>neutral text like "This is available under XYZ...." instead of "Sun
>elects to use only the...".
No, that is what you'll have to add if they say. These are lawyers :)
>I interpret the latter as SFW is meant for SX only while it
>need/should not be the case.
well yes in a truly open world but we aren't quite there yet.
>> > /usr/bin/cryptdir
>> > /usr/bin/decryptdir
>>
>> hmm the crypt examples ship eh - we may have to bother export
>> control too at least to notify them even though they are just
>> wrappers around 'crypt'.
>>
>> Make sure that none of these bits conflict with anything
>> already there in some other package
>
>Notification is all that might be required due to the name of the scripts.
very likely but it will have to be done.
>How about installing all these examples under something like
>/usr/demo/expect instead of cluttering the /usr/bin. These are
>examples/demo files anyway.
that is up to you, I don't know enough about what 'make install'
would really install by default, nor what users of expect
would.. expect to see. But actually even their presence in the
source probably means we have to go through export control (but
hopefully quickly, signs are looking up for it being quicker now
for open source bits).
>> - doesn't look like it
>> and if you did the pkgadd on a full installation then there
>> probably aren't or it would have been upset, but do make sure
>> (this list is also what ARC would like to know).
>>
>
>If we choose /usr/demo/expect for the example scripts, we can leave it
>out of the ARC list I suppose. (Provide listing of only /usr/bin,
>/usr/lib, /usr/share/man ?)
nope you should really list everything. they like pathnames :)
and they may have thoughts on /usr/demo vs bin, you can also
use them for opinions on things like that.
>
>> > /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.a
>>
>> this .a will be interesting to the arc as well - is there no
>> way to build it shared easily? static libraries are usually
>> not allowed (though some could be, I'd argue that the bison/flex
>> libraries should just be static but could still lose that :)
>>
>
>After a false start with hackish solution, was able to do it using
>expect's configure script without any other changes.
nice.
Mike
