Re: Octave/Win32 update

[Michael Goffioul]

> | My idea was to put somewhere (in octave-forge, for instance) all that
> | is required to re-build the complete thing, as I do. This means the 
> | compile tools (like cc-msvc),
>
> I think it would also be OK to include these scripts in the Octave
> sources if you would like.
>   

I would prefer to keep all stuff in a centralized place for the moment. 
And not
spread it between octave and octave-forge. As this is still 
work-in-progress,
I propose to put everything in octave-forge in a first step 
(admin/Windows/msvc/).
Once things get stabilized, we can decide to move them along. Does that 
sound
OK?

> | but also for each support lib, a patch
> | and a howto explaining how I compile the library under MSVC
> | (which is sometimes quite tricky). For the GPL packages, I guess
> | we'd also need to provide the original source package (on request,
> | for instance, because they are available on the web anyway).
> | 
> | Would that be OK?
>
> I think you need to provide the sources alongside the binary, and not
> just patches, but either the complete patched sources, or the original
> sources plus the patches.  Please see the following FAQ and ones
> related to it:
>
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCAnonFTPAndSendSource
>
> Also, I think that you need to distribute the complete source, not
> just the parts that are explicitly covered by the GPL.  Once you
> combine the parts, the GPL requires that users can get the complete
> source for the version of the program that you are distributing (with
> the exception of libraries that are part of the OS, as we discussed
> earlier).
>   

So, the sources for all packages I listed in my previous mail should be 
distributed
along with the binary, included the source for octave and octave-forge. 
Where
do I put all this? I guess a link to the original source package is not 
enough...

Michael.