[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Any objection to changing from LGPL to GPL in gnulib?
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Any objection to changing from LGPL to GPL in gnulib? |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:25:12 -0800 (PST) |
> From: address@hidden (Karl Berry)
> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 19:22:24 -0500
>
> strdup.c
>
> This file used to be copied from libc, but Jim made some changes to
> this, notably #if HAVE_CONFIG_H instead of #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H. Due to
> an error on my part, I hadn't been cvs updating gnulib nightly, so I
> didn't notice the change until now. Jim, can I blow those away so we
> can go back to the libc file? Does it really matter?
My impression is that it's mostly a stylistic thing, and it doesn't
matter all that much.
Some people might compile with gcc -Wundef, and I suppose they'll
prefer the ifdef form, but as far as I know no gnulib users compile
that way so I don't think we need to worry about that.
> error.c
>
> This file has numerous configuration-related differences between libc
> and gnulib. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to merge them.
Jim is the unlocked-io and the print_errno_message expert, so he might
be the best person to look at this one.
> strtoll.c
>
> Here, the only change is that the libc version has #include <strtol.c>
> while the gnulib version has #include "strtol.c". Is it ok to use the libc
> one, or do we need to get it ifdef'd in the libc source?
I don't know why anybody would care about "" versus <> here, so I'd
just use the libc one.
Thanks for all the work!