Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the updated file list:
Thanks.
...
> lib/stdint.in.h
modules/stdint says:
License:
LGPLv2+
I need stdint in libidn.
> lib/sys_socket.in.h
> lib/sys_stat.in.h
> lib/unistd.in.h
I need those in the core GnuTLS library, and they all seem to be
Hi,
> $ git stash
> $ git fetch
> $ git rebase origin/master
> $ git stash apply
>
> $ git stash clear
> $ git reset
Note that "git stash clear" is a dangerous command. I recommend to use it
only after "git stash list" and/or "git status".
I just did this:
$ git stash
$ g
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> For example, arctwo and arcfour are marked as 'LGPLv2+' in the
> modules file, which as far as I understand would mean that they would
> not be included in your update, but still you include it:
>
> > lib/arcfour.c
> > lib/arcfour.h
> > lib/arctwo.c
> > lib/arctwo.h
>
> I
Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Missing dependency: I imported the 'relocatable-prog' module in an
> empty project. It lacked the 'alloca' module dependency (although it
> imported 'alloca-opt'):
>
> $ sh bootstrap
> + autoreconf --install --symlink --warnings=all
> /usr/share/aclocal/smpeg.m4:13: warnin
Hi Karl,
> 2) Assuming that is not imminent, we are contemplating changing the
>licensing for most gnulib files to GPLv3+/LGPLv3+. Any reactions?
This is unrelated to LGPLv2.5. (I shouldn't have mentioned the two independent
topics in a single mail; my bad.)
If LGPLv2.5 comes to exist, it m
Committed.
> 2007-09-30 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/alloca.in.h: Renamed from lib/alloca_.h.
> * lib/argz.in.h: Renamed from lib/argz_.h.
> * lib/byteswap.in.h: Renamed from lib/byteswap_.h.
> * lib/dirent.in.h: Renamed from lib/dirent_.h.
> * lib/fc
Hi Brett,
1) Are there still plans for LGPL v2.5, or is that effectively dead?
2) Assuming that is not imminent, we are contemplating changing the
licensing for most gnulib files to GPLv3+/LGPLv3+. Any reactions?
Thanks,
Karl
Sean Boudreau wrote:
> They're non standard and present challenges in the portability department
> so if they aren't needed the less they're referenced the better.
I agree with you. We considered this point. (For example, there is a way
to implement the 'close-stream' module with fpending and one
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I've checked this in anyways:
> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commit;h=da27171
I suspect that nobody needs it nowadays; in that case it might be
better to omit it from gnulib, as it might confuse people into
thinking that it's useful.
Hi,
Missing dependency: I imported the 'relocatable-prog' module in an
empty project. It lacked the 'alloca' module dependency (although it
imported 'alloca-opt'):
$ sh bootstrap
+ autoreconf --install --symlink --warnings=all
/usr/share/aclocal/smpeg.m4:13: warning: underquoted definition of A
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Three months have passed since the announcement of the desire to switch
> to GPLv3 and LGPLv3 respectively. We have discussed the topic, and marked
> exceptions as "LGPLv2+" in the modules files. There were discussions
> about a possible LGPLv2.5
Hi Eric,
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Eric Blake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Martin Koeppe on 9/30/2007 9:38 AM:
where do I find test-strerror.c? I looked in the coreutils snapshot and
in gnulib cvs to no avail.
Which cvs repository? Gnulib is now stored in g
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Now I propose to change the documented meaning of "GPL" and "LGPL" in
>> the modules files (to GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+, respectively), and to update
>> the copyright headers of the following files.
>>
>> Objections?
>
> None from me.
> I've always been in fav
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 06:51:04PM -0400, Eric Blake wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> According to Sean Boudreau on 9/30/2007 4:10 PM:
> > Hello:
>
> Hello Sean, and adding bug-gnulib,
>
> >
> > Would it be possible to not bring in freading.c and fpurge.c
> > and to
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now I propose to change the documented meaning of "GPL" and "LGPL" in
> the modules files (to GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+, respectively), and to update
> the copyright headers of the following files.
Regarding the files in which I have or share maintainership, I
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Three months have passed since the announcement of the desire to switch
> to GPLv3 and LGPLv3 respectively. We have discussed the topic, and marked
> exceptions as "LGPLv2+" in the modules files. There were discussions
> about a possible LGPLv2.5 but it has
Hi,
Three months have passed since the announcement of the desire to switch
to GPLv3 and LGPLv3 respectively. We have discussed the topic, and marked
exceptions as "LGPLv2+" in the modules files. There were discussions
about a possible LGPLv2.5 but it has apparently not materialized.
Now I propos
17 matches
Mail list logo