[Gnewsense-dev] Re: Important bug reports (GNU documentation missing)

[christophe . jarry]

During my work on packaging GNU documentation for gNewSense metad, I  
found some strange things, which may be bugs to be reported to GNU:

-in GCC-4.5.0 source code:

 -most of the documentation is under the GNU FDL v1.2 or later, while  
it should be under GNU FDL v1.3 or later (cpp.info, gcc.info,  
gccinstall.info, gccint.info, gcj.info, gfortran.info, gnat*.texi,  
libgomp.info);

 -'cppinternals.info' is not under the GNU FDL, while copyrighted by the FSF;

 -'cp-tools.info' has no license at all, while copyrighted by the FSF;

 -'gfortran.info' is copyrighted by the FSF '1999-2008', although it  
should be under the form '1999, 2000, [other years], 2008';

 -documentation for 'libstdc++' is html-only, while, as part of the  
GNU project, it should be written in texinfo.


-in Binutils-2.20.1 source code:

 -'standards.info' is under GFDL v1.2 or later instead of GFDL v1.3 or later;

 -some files have FSF copyright years written in the form '99'  
instead of '1999' (as.info, gprof.info, ld.info), I don't know if this  
matters much.


-in GDB-7.1 source code:

 -most of the documentation is released under the GNU FDL v1.1 or  
later (annotate.info, gdb.info, gdbint.info, stabs.info) or GNU FDL  
v1.2 or later (standards.info), while it should be under GNU FDL v1.3  
or later.


For my 'gnu-doc' package, I plan to use the 'bfd.info' file released  
in gdb-7.1 source code, which is more recent than binutils-2.20.1 one.  
Do you think it is a problem to include latest versions of GNU  
documentation in 'gnu-doc' package, while GNU software available in  
gNewSense metad is older?


Christophe

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.