was (Fwd: Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?): symlink old tarball name to new one

[Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <awg@embtoolkit.org>]

Dear all,
How about to have the same simlinks  to new gdb tarballs name?
Thanks,
AWG

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: binutils-2.20.1a replaced by 2.20.1 and so 2.21.1a?
Date: 	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 10:43:20 +0200
From: 	Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>
To: 	Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE <awg@embtoolkit.org>
CC: 	Steffen Dettmer <steffen.dettmer@googlemail.com>, binutils@sourceware.org



On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Abdoulaye Walsimou GAYE wrote:

>  On 08/30/2011 05:36 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>  On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
>>
>>>>  This was a license issue raised by the FSF: some files were
>>>>  derived from cgen files, but these cgen files weren't included
>>>>  in the tarballs.  We were asked by the FSF to repackage all the
>>>>  incomplete tarballs.
>>>  Thank you for your quick reply.
>>>
>>>  The issue itself is interesting. Sounds like much effort and may
>>>  even require undesired things like modifying release tags...
>>>  I though it would be sufficient to publish GPLed files, not that a
>>>  special form could be required (and I had assumed it had been
>>>  sufficient to put them on some public server or even just to some
>>>  CVS repository reabable by the public).
>>  Yes, the workload is not minimal, but this was the FSF decision.
>>
>>  Tristan.
>
>  This kind of URL change is a serial killer for automatic build system/script already shipped.
>  Is it possible to have simlinks like 'oldername'->'newname'
>  (as for example binutils-2.21.1a.tar.bz2 tarball will actually contain binutils-2.21.1)?

Yes, good idea.
Done for 2.16 to 2.21.1.

Tristan.