Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:21:45 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: emacs-22.0.99_1 Message-ID: <20070821092144.GC2000@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <C53FA330-0A95-49F7-A2DD-FBA1DFC81735@mac.com> References: <b2807d040708191436g38186ce6l73a7bb46bd42800b@mail.gmail.com> <20070820100203.GA2580@kobe.laptop> <C53FA330-0A95-49F7-A2DD-FBA1DFC81735@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007-08-20 11:12, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: >On Aug 20, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >[ ... ] >> I apologize for leaving the port stale for so long, but it's a fairly >> big moving target right now, with the release of GNU Emacs 22.2 in the >> works. > > Thanks for your work on the Emacs port, Giorgos. > >> The integration of the patches may require a bit of care though, since a >> lot of GNU software has switched to GPLv3 and I am a bit unsure about >> the proper way to integrate GPLv3 code with our Ports tree. > > Emacs and GNU tar have switched; gcc will move with 4.3 (.0, or perhaps > 4.3.3 [depending on how silly someone is about bumping version #'s]); but > most of the other utilities seem to be waiting until their next normal > "feature release" before changing the license terms over. > > Anyway, did you have a specific concern about GPLv3? I was mostly concerned about local patches which we have 'backported' from CVS trunk of GNU Emacs to the editors/emacs port, to unbreak GTK+ builds. Should we sign papers with the FSF to 'distribute' builds of this port? Do we need to change anything from the way we handled GPLv2 versions of GNU Emacs in the Ports tree? .. and so on.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070821092144.GC2000>