From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23.4 Updated Windows Binaries published Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:01:41 +0900 Message-ID: <8739anzyiy.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <4F2EAF8E.3010106@alice.it> <83d39tcjdx.fsf@gnu.org> <87haz4zksa.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fweozgbu.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d39szb88.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8762fkyo2b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328547732 26526 80.91.229.3 (6 Feb 2012 17:02:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Angelo Graziosi , "Richard M. Stallman" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 06 18:02:10 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RuRxC-0007HE-JV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:02:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59052 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RuRxC-0002Ic-2I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:02:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57891) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RuRx1-0002Hp-8n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:02:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RuRwv-0000lm-Lr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:01:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:46654) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RuRwm-0000jK-LX; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:01:45 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22D59707AB; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:01:41 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6FA301A282A; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:01:41 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" e6b5c49f9e13 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148272 Archived-At: Lennart Borgman writes: > It says "through the same place", not "at the same place". And it also > tells what to do if the source is not on the same server as the object > code. > > I really do not understand. I would be glad if you explained > further. You may be right. At least, by "same place" I mean "via relative URI", and I've always read 6(d) that way, but that's clearly my mistake since it does refer to textual instructions. The question about a third party's sources, though, I think there's some ambiguity there. "You" are required to provide and ensure availability of the sources; I've always interpreted that as meaning you need to have access to the server where the archive is hosted, and the phrase about "operated by a third party" is intended to avoid the excessive burden (for most folks) of maintaining a host. Rather, you can use Savannah or SourceForge, as long as you do the work of maintaining the copy. If the intent is in fact to allow a third party's copy to be used, ok, you're technically right. But I would consider the necessary legal arrangements to be prohibitively expensive, compared to a rental server or a project on Savannah or SourceForge. > Updating the DOI-like URI would indeed be problematic since it could > still be used for old distributed object. I guess you have to create > new numbers for every ojbect distribution. Yes. But this isn't that hard; you would use some kind of universal ID, like the bzr revid (not revno). > Ok, I never understood it that way, but you may be right. However even > Launchpad seems to get an easy way to download a zip file instead of > using Bazaar soon. Sure, that would certainly satisfy the "equivalent copying" requirement.