On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 09/19/2010 11:16 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 09/15/2010 02:11 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I tried to test QEMU on Win2k, but there are run time errors because
>>>> of missing {get,free}{addr,name}info() functions. After adding dummy
>>>> defines in place, there are no more errors.
>>>>
>>>> I found a similar case, where a compatibility patch was proposed:
>>>> http://trac.filezilla-project.org/ticket/1532
>>>>
>>>> The patch is a bit heavy, consisting of run time detection of Win2k
>>>> and full replacements for the functions. Are there any alternative
>>>> solutions? I'm by no means a Windows expert.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Win2k is EOL so I don't think it's useful for us to support it as a host.
>>> So any type of patch is just going to add additional complexity for very
>>> little real gain.
>>>
>>
>> I made a compatibility patch based on the FileZilla patch. The impact
>> is very low, outside of the new files added, only Makefiles are
>> changed.
>>
>
> Does gnulib have a similar replacement function?
Very similar, in fact that must be the source.
> The nice thing about gnulib is that in the long term, we could potentially
> use gnulib for compatibility and make sure to get updated code.
One problem is that the current versions use GPLv3.
