Re: [Savannah-hackers] gnu-specific and gna-specific moved out

[Sylvain Beucler]

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,