Re: gcc SRPM

On Feb 25, 2005, at 10:12, John Summerfield wrote:

> Perhaps a little confused as to who's responsible, but the point 
> still stands. If the binaries are shipped as an RPM, then the package 
> i a derived work and so still covered by the GPL, and the srource RPM 
> is the most sensible packaging to enable a user to recreate the 
> binaries. In some cases a tarball containing the spec file will work 
> as will an expanded source rpm, but I don't think either is more 
> convenient to most users or developers than the source rpm.

yes, there should be an SRPM. why it's not ther? I don't know, it 
should be there. Who's fault is it? Likely me. I apologize.
The source however is available:

1) src/SPECS for the specfile
2) http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/  for the source tarball.

-fkr
--
076E 1E87 3E05 1C7F B1A0  8A48 0D31 9BD3 D9AC 74D0
http://fkr.hazardous.org/ | http://opendarwin.org/~fkr/ | FKR-RIPE