Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises
the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted.
True. I would add that most of the changes needs to build packages on
non-linux systems using glibc has already been done by the GNU/Hurd a
* Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07 11:35]:
> I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises
> the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted.
Yes, that's the point.
yours Martin
p.s. no need to cc me, I'm subscribed
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises
the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted.
andrew
On 4/7/06, Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-06 23:19]:
>
> > Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port gli
* Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-06 23:19]:
> Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc.
Which I think would be most beneficial as it additianaly would minimize
the number of packages to add to the archive for the solaris port in
case nexentas work should become a debian subproje
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
>> GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and
>> in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and
>> distribute the Program ..." During the discussi
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> >(d-l may give advice)
> >So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every*
> >copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU
> >utils would be easier as there is
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
(d-l may give advice)
So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every*
copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU
utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF)
or OpenSolaris needs to rel
Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc.
andrew
On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (d-l may give advice)
>
> So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from
> *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc.
> (the GNU utils would be e
(d-l may give advice)
So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from
*every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc.
(the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one
copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible
as Sun woul
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous;
The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section
has been well-understood and widely discussed for years.
| The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
|
The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; it could be argued that
this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I
wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous.
andrew
On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 4
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed
>> binaries together with those libraries.
> Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'?
Yes.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include
> the C library.
Unfortunately, it does not apply if the thing you ship is also part of
that s
Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'?
On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> > shipped with your OS or compiler,
>
> No. It says you may d
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
> shipped with your OS or compiler,
No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries
together with those libraries.
--
Steve Langasek
The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally
shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include
the C library.
andrew
On 4/6/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> > Attached is the
Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit :
> Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
> solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
Have you fixed the legal situation of dpkg being linked with a
GPL-incompatible C library?
Regards,
--
.''`.
Re: Erast Benson 2006-04-06 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
> solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
>
> We would like to start submitting patchsets for core packages like dpkg,
> apt, debhelper, coreutils, gcc, xorg, and many othe
Hi Guys,
Back in November 2005 Michael Schultheiss performed initial analysis of
dpkg patches at [1]. Our dpkg implementation has changed a bit since
than.
Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
We would like to start s
19 matches
Mail list logo
