On Mon, 08 May 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
[I never got a response to this--could we finish the discussion?]
OOPS, your message got into the grx-handled folder somehow, sorry.
GRX should run on every X11R5 & X11R6 (tested on SPARC, ALPHA, i386)
I see.
I have never heard of doxygen. What does it convert from? What does it convert to?
Reads the sources and transforms special formated comments into doc. Output is HTML and LaTeX (maybe more).
Our standard documentation format is Texinfo. So we would like the documentation to be written in Texinfo, or at least in some format that can be converted automatically to Texinfo.
Anyway, doesn't the world have enough doxies already? ;-). (Doxies are whores.)
Yes, yuŽre right. I myself didn't start the documentation because of Texinfo. ItŽs rather difficult on first view (and IŽm familiar with TeX!)
If substantial changes in the documentation are needed, then they don't have to be made *right away* before the program becomes a GNU package. They have to be part of the plans for future work.
So GRX should be activley maintained to become a GNU package ?
We want every GNU package to be maintained. So whenever you stop maintaining GRX, we would look for someone else to take over.
That's a general policy to deal with problems that will arise in the future. If GRX has particular problems *now* that clearly should be fixed, we need to plan now to solve them.
******************************** I do not maintain GRX any longer ********************************
A few weeks ago I collected all changes from the mailing list, from my private email archive and from a few public net places and set up a unified patch against grx v2.3. This patch also includes BCC2GRX (Borland BGI interface) as I promised to do.
Peter Gerwinsky will put it online at www.gnu.de whenever he has some spare time.
GRX needs a new maintainer. The major tasks currently are
- adding autoconf support for better Linux/Unix build process - starting Texinfo documentation - try to clean up the licence so the Win driver can be integrated - package all things together and release grx v3.0 ! - Support BCC2GRX on other compilers than gcc
If *YOU* want to maintain GRX, please send a note to the mailing list grx@gnu.de archive http://www.gnu.de/archive/wilma.cgi/grx or drop me a personal email.
RMS: Please cc: any further mail concerning GRX to the mailing list if appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who send questions, suggestions, patches or other contributions to GRX.
Hartmut
Hartmut Schirmer wrote:
A few weeks ago I collected all changes from the mailing list, from my private email archive and from a few public net places and set up a unified patch against grx v2.3. This patch also includes BCC2GRX (Borland BGI interface) as I promised to do.
Peter Gerwinsky will put it online at www.gnu.de
Gerwinski *
whenever he has some spare time.
Since I cannot wait until that moment I did just put the patch online with a quick note on the GRX homepage:
http://www.gnu.de/software/GRX/
Happy hacking,
Peter
On 12 Jun 2000, at 11:56, Hartmut Schirmer wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
[I never got a response to this--could we finish the discussion?]
OOPS, your message got into the grx-handled folder somehow, sorry.
GRX should run on every X11R5 & X11R6 (tested on SPARC, ALPHA, i386)
I see.
I have never heard of doxygen. What does it convert from? What does it convert to?
Reads the sources and transforms special formated comments into doc. Output is HTML and LaTeX (maybe more).
Our standard documentation format is Texinfo. So we would like the documentation to be written in Texinfo, or at least in some format that can be converted automatically to Texinfo.
Anyway, doesn't the world have enough doxies already? ;-). (Doxies are whores.)
Yes, yu´re right. I myself didn't start the documentation because of Texinfo. It´s rather difficult on first view (and I´m familiar with TeX!)
If substantial changes in the documentation are needed, then they don't have to be made *right away* before the program becomes a GNU package. They have to be part of the plans for future work.
So GRX should be activley maintained to become a GNU package ?
We want every GNU package to be maintained. So whenever you stop maintaining GRX, we would look for someone else to take over.
That's a general policy to deal with problems that will arise in the future. If GRX has particular problems *now* that clearly should be fixed, we need to plan now to solve them.
I do not maintain GRX any longer
A few weeks ago I collected all changes from the mailing list, from my private email archive and from a few public net places and set up a unified patch against grx v2.3. This patch also includes BCC2GRX (Borland BGI interface) as I promised to do.
Peter Gerwinsky will put it online at www.gnu.de whenever he has some spare time.
GRX needs a new maintainer. The major tasks currently are
- adding autoconf support for better Linux/Unix build process
- starting Texinfo documentation
- try to clean up the licence so the Win driver can be integrated
- package all things together and release grx v3.0 !
- Support BCC2GRX on other compilers than gcc
If *YOU* want to maintain GRX, please send a note to the mailing list grx@gnu.de archive http://www.gnu.de/archive/wilma.cgi/grx or drop me a personal email.
RMS: Please cc: any further mail concerning GRX to the mailing list if appropriate.
Thanks to everyone who send questions, suggestions, patches or other contributions to GRX.
Some very preliminary comments (I haven't built it yet):
Tried to apply a patch to not modified grx23.zip. Results:
patching file include/grdriver.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 54. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/grdriver.h.rej patching file src/makebase.dj Hunk #2 succeeded at 18 with fuzz 2. Hunk #5 FAILED at 105. 1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/makebase.dj.rej
I think also licence conditions for BCC2BGI should be updated if we're going to make it LGPL or GPL sometimes as
"You may not distribute any changed versions of BCC2GRX without written permission by Hartmut Schirmer."
excludes LGPL and GPL AFAIK. Perhaps Hartmut is only one who may do this. The same modifications should be applied to all sources in src/bgi.
Andris
PS. I used all this time modified versions of GRX23 and BCC2GRX which included some additional features as some support for printing using BGI interface. Perhaps I could send related patches sometime (but I should get them into this latest update at first)
Hallo, Hartmut!
Tut mir leid, wenn ich Dich noch mal mit GRX behellige, aber ...
Andris Pavenis schrieb:
I think also licence conditions for BCC2BGI should be updated if we're going to make it LGPL or GPL sometimes as
"You may not distribute any changed versions of BCC2GRX without written permission by Hartmut Schirmer."
excludes LGPL and GPL AFAIK. Perhaps Hartmut is only one who may do this. The same modifications should be applied to all sources in src/bgi.
Dürfen wir das austauschen? Erst mal gegen die aktuelle GRX-Lizenz (LGPL mit Zusatzzahl) und später (wenn das jemals Wirklichkeit wird) gegen GPL mit Zusatzzahl?
Am besten wäre vielleicht eine kurze E-Mail an die GRX-Liste mit einer entsprechenden Erlaubnis.
Hoffend, die Dinge bald sortiert zu kriegen,
Peter, der gestern ein "grx-2.3.1" herausgegeben hat
Hello, GRX list,
sorry for my email in German; it was intended to be sent to Hartmut only.
[Fortunately, it wasn't anything really private involved ...:-]
Peter
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
Hallo, Hartmut!
Tut mir leid, wenn ich Dich noch mal mit GRX behellige, aber ...
Nein, das ist kein Problem. Ich hätte daran denken können, hab mir die Sache zu einfach gemacht.
Andris Pavenis schrieb:
I think also licence conditions for BCC2BGI should be updated if we're going to make it LGPL or GPL sometimes as
"You may not distribute any changed versions of BCC2GRX without written permission by Hartmut Schirmer."
excludes LGPL and GPL AFAIK. Perhaps Hartmut is only one who may do this. The same modifications should be applied to all sources in src/bgi.
Dürfen wir das austauschen? Erst mal gegen die aktuelle GRX-Lizenz (LGPL mit Zusatzzahl) und später (wenn das jemals Wirklichkeit wird) gegen GPL mit Zusatzzahl?
Peter, you may change the BCC2GRX copyright notices and other restrictions to allow BCC2GRX to be distributed as part of GRX under the GRX licence conditions.
Hope this is appropriate and sufficient. If I need to sign any papers please drop me a copy of it.
Hartmut
-
Hartmut Schirmer -
pavenis＠lanet.lv -
Peter Gerwinski