This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [v3] small bits

>> Fixes up the assignment address. Noticed by Gwain Bolton.
>But does libstdc++ have special approval from RMS to include the
>assignment form at all?  RMS insisted that the forms be removed from the
>GCC website, and in general the standard FSF procedure now is that you
>send in a request-assign.* email form and get sent a pre-filled-in paper
>assign.* form to sign.  Is this a pre- or post- Jan 2002 version of the
>form?  (I.e., if someone had only filled out that form, would it cause
>problems later if libstdc++ documentation were made into a printed book -
>the continued distribution of this form meaning that a more complicated
>rule than Jan 2002 must be used on libstdc++ assignments?)

The straight answer is, I don't know what to do. Libstdc++ doesn't have
any special deal with RMS.  The last time I checked, libstdc++ and
libjava did the identical thing, although now that I look at it, java
now points to the gcc/contribute.html page. The C++ Coding Standards for
libstdc++ need to be mentioned on the gcc/contribute.html page if is
to be removed.

It turns out that a libstdc++ assignment is MIA because of this
incorrect information. This was an attempt at a quick fix for that

I too am of the opinion that the libstdc++ contributor information
should look just like libjava and the rest of gcc now. I don't have time
to work on this: if you feel like fixing this stuff up, you have my
blessing and thanks.

It looks like this would have to be modified so that points two and
three go to the assignment bits at the gcc page:


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]