nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nicko van Someren) (05/13/91)
Well, I now have a copy of GhostScript. Isn't it good? What do you meen you
havn't got around to down loading it? It can't be that big, it runs in a 200k
wimpslot!
What I am really saying is - if you post something very big, why not post one
archive for a minimal runnable set, on archive for, say, some extra fonts and
finally one archive for the source to keep the GNU people happy. While you're
at it the source could be posted to comp.source.acorn which does not seem to
have had alot of traffic yet. A minimal working set comes out as a 150k
archive which would be much more in the range of most peoples phone bills!
O.K. so most of it was fonts but I think most of us could get away without
all of them.
Things like this should be Alan's job but I guess they only come with time.
While we're at it, I would have thought the it was Alan's job to make sure
that binaries that got sent out could be run with existing C-Libs.
Anyway, rant over. If fixes get sent can we just have some change files and
a new !RunImage, please.
Nicko
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nicko van Someren, nbvs@cl.cam.ac.uk, (44) 223 358707 or (44) 860 498903 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+aglover@acorn.co.uk (Alan Glover) (05/14/91)
Yep, I would have liked to split it too - can you imagine how long it took to post 31 parts. (Incidentally apologies to anyone who got them slightly out of order - the mail system here decided to collect some articles before others .... I posted 'em in sequence honest :-)) However, look at the !Help file - it asks that the whole lot be treated as one chunk - sources included. Since I don't know whether everyone has comp.sources available I didn't split it. As for the issue of which CLib it works with, I'm working on that one, and will be posting the minimum possible to get it going with 3.50 or 3.66. Alan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- aglover@acorn.co.uk - Moderator of comp.binaries.acorn/comp.sources.acorn Mail submissions to submit@acorn.co.uk, other mail to moderator@acorn.co.uk
dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy) (05/15/91)
In article <7052@acorn.co.uk> aglover@acorn.co.uk (Alan Glover) writes: >Yep, I would have liked to split it too - can you imagine how long it took >to post 31 parts. (Incidentally apologies to anyone who got them slightly >out of order - the mail system here decided to collect some articles before >others .... I posted 'em in sequence honest :-)) > >However, look at the !Help file - it asks that the whole lot be treated as >one chunk - sources included. Since I don't know whether everyone has >comp.sources available I didn't split it. > To make this clear, this is because of the terms of the Gnu licence (as I understood it at least). >As for the issue of which CLib it works with, I'm working on that one, and >will be posting the minimum possible to get it going with 3.50 or 3.66. > I've just rebuilt it with 3.66, and will be posting the changes to Alan shortly. There is also a change to the !Run file, which means -- I hope! -- that it works OK on 1M machines. Some people reported getting an "Abort on data transfer" message. I recreated the problem, and have check that it no longer happens, using a 310. The release note will also say how you can set up a minimal system, which makes it usable from floppy. Watch comp.binaries.acorn for details! -- david elworthy
gtoal@tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.110846.3065@cl.cam.ac.uk> dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy) writes: >To make this clear, this is because of the terms of the Gnu licence (as I >understood it at least). Actually, I think you're overinterpreting it. I'm sure it doesn't say anywhere that all the bits have to be in the same package. In fact I don't think you're oblidged to include the source - just to make it available when asked for. Mainly the gnu license is about what happens *after* you've supplied it once: that your 'customers' have the right to pass it on to third parties. I'm sure it's perfectly compatible with the terms of the gnu license if you were to post only minimal binaries, and leave the sources on Newcastle, for instance. Unless Ghostscript has extra conditions attached. Having posted the sources once, you can *definitely* now just issue patches :-) Graham