[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Where is the source code for fvwm95 2.0.43a?


	I am not sure how to read your statements. Your first comment
states that (contrary to my assertion) the source code distributed with
Slink matches up with the binary version of fvwm95 that is in Slink. Your
second comment says that the situation I described (source code mismatch)
is a known flaw - which to me, reads like an acknolwedgement that there is
a source code mismatch.

	Anyway, some (but not all) of the reasons I had for stating that
there is a source code mismatch have disappeared. The source code for
fvwm95 has a version of 2.0.43ba tagged to it. Since 'fvwm95 -version'
returns 2.0.43a , this was one of my reasons for saying that there is a
mismatch. However, I just discovered that the fvwm95 I built from source
also returns a version of 2.0.43a.


	I still have a very large mismatch in file sizes between the
packaged up binaries, and the binaries that I built. Can someone explain
away these (sometimes by a factor of 10) mismatches?


On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 12:39:55PM -0600, Jor-el wrote:
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > 	I just recieved a replacement for my defective source CD from my
> > vendor, and I found that the source code on the CD is for 2.0.43ba . Where
> > is the source code for the version of fvwm95 that is shipped as a binary
> > in Slink?
> The source for the binary that is shipped with slink is in slink.  If there
> is a difference in source and binary.. then there was a security update and
> the binary in slink has been changed, also.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Jor-el
> > 
> > PS.  Technically, the source cod not being available is a violation of the
> > GPL. Should I file a bug report?
> Who would you file a bug against?  It's not the packages fault.  It's a
> flaw (and a known flaw) in the whole install process.  If it's a problem
> with the copyright holders of fvwm95, best is for them to contact the
> leadership (Wichert, Richard, James and Guy) and see if they can work
> something out until we get the problem solved for all GPL packages.

Reply to: