Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

[Tony G. <Ton...@Su...>]

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
>>>Tony Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
>>>>distribution.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
>>>whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
>>>As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
>>>distributed with as many different licenses as you want.
>>>
>>>Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
>>>affected at all by how you package things.
>> I think I finally understand your point.
>> So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
>> How would it work for the SRPM package?
>
> Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
> may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
> that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
> a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
> generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...

I don't know how to run nested autoconf (or whatever the term may be).

It may be possible to copy the essential parts of PangoXSL's configure.ac into
xmlroff's configure.in and just have xmlroff build PangoXSL.  It would require
some experimentation.

> PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
>     That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.

If Emacs works as well with subversion as it does with CVS.  If it takes more
than three keystrokes to check in a file, diff it, or get it's history, or if
I can't run `ediff-revision' on a file, then it's not worth it for me to
change.

Where are the details for SourceForge's support for subversion?

Regards,


Tony.