Re: [uml-devel] 2.4.10-6um

[Jeff D. <jd...@ka...>]

ad...@do... said:
> tbh, I haven't looked at cvs.  I'm wary of packaging anything in cvs
> for inclusion into a deb that will be uploaded into the archive.  This
> is not a hard and fast rule in debian, but just one my my own.

I wasn't proposing just dumping my cvs into your packages.  What I was 
suggesting was looking at the existing UML .deb build procedure and maybe
using it as a starting point.

> What could be hard, is that since there was no license previously, you
> can't just go attaching one now, without making sure that all
> submitters to the particular code being licensed agree. 

I think I'll just toss the GPL in there, and if anyone objects, I'll just
reimplement whatever they sent me.

> I may rewrite them all, so they share rules.  I'm a makefile guru.

Cool.

> On another note, regarding documentation: I noted on the website that
> you say it is a special xml format.  Would you be against having this
> be converted to sgml DocBook(note, I haven't checked out cvs, will do
> that later today)? 

It does (parts of it anyway).  Some of the xml files get jammed together,
converted into sgml, and that's used to generate the html and text HOWTO.

				Jeff