Hey Craig,

On 01/26/12 02:17 PM, Craig Mohrman wrote:
The license files are the same between those 2 revs.
(Comparing the new of the previous to your current one.)

So what changed?

If you look at this webrev:
http://jurassic.us.oracle.com/net/jade2/builds1/kc28005/userland-u1-xz-retry/webrev-previous/

which compares the new workspace to the previous one you should see the only difference in the 3 files is to the xz.license file.

It notes:
345 lines changed: 345 ins; 0 del; 0 mod; 507 unchg

If you look at the 'sdiff' it's probably easier to see the new GPLv2 text followed by the original LGPLv2.1 text. So those 345 ins(serted) are the GPLv2 license text. The 507 unch(anged) are the LGPLv2.1 license text.

I don't think it jumps out immediately if you only look at the 'new' of the previous and the 'new' of the current webrev but the difference is the addition of the GPLv2 license text to that file. ;)

previous workspace:
[kcrowe@jade2:/builds1/kc28005/userland-u1-xz/components/xz ] $ cat xz.license | wc -l
     507

new workspace:
[kcrowe@jade2:/builds1/kc28005/userland-u1-xz-retry/components/xz ] $ cat xz.license | wc -l
     852

Thanks,
Kevin.


----- kevin.cr...@oracle.com wrote:

Hello,

Looking for a code review of XZ Utils:

http://jurassic.us.oracle.com/net/jade2/builds1/kc28005/userland-u1-xz-retry/webrev/


This may sound familiar.  The previous push was backed out due to an
incorrect xz.license file.  As such, the only real difference from the

previous push is the license file itself, here's a webrev from the
changes that I originally pushed back on Jan 17th:

http://jurassic.us.oracle.com/net/jade2/builds1/kc28005/userland-u1-xz-retry/webrev-previous/


Thanks,
Kevin.

_______________________________________________
userland-discuss mailing list
userland-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/userland-discuss


_______________________________________________
userland-discuss mailing list
userland-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/userland-discuss

Reply via email to