[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: no license on some test modules
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: no license on some test modules |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:16:43 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 12/12/2007 12:04 AM:
> Hello Eric, all,
>
> * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:18:35PM CET:
>> This may not be the end of the story. For M4 head, it is now triggering a
>> libtool bug - libtool mistakenly canonicalizes its link line, and discards
>> one
>> of the two instances of $(local_ldadd), which means we are right back to the
>> link failures.
>
> I replied to that issue on bug-libtool (--preserve-dup-deps before
> --mode on the libtool link command line, i.e., in *_LIBTOOLFLAGS).
Bruno - is this flag worth adding when using a separate test library?
>
> I have not had the time to follow this discussion through, sorry,
> but wasn't the original intention to split things up, due to some
> licensing issue? If you have circular dependencies (which in general
> are a hint at bad interface design, but that may not apply in this
> case), doesn't that mean that the code in your libraries cannot
> reasonably be split apart, and consequently, it's rather questionable
> to allow to treat them differently wrt. licenses?
You are correct that the split was intended to make GPL test modules vs.
LGPL library modules possible (and I would hope that the LGPL library
never refers to symbols in the GPL test library). However, in M4's case,
there is no use of --lgpl, so both libraries are GPL, so cross-library
references is not a licensing issue.
Hmm - so far, we've only had reports of the problem when using the GPL
progname module to provide the definition of program_name, which is
required by test programs that end up calling error(). Perhaps an
alternative fix is just fixing all of these test programs to declare their
own program_name variable, rather than relying on the progname module to
do it in their behalf (ie. m4 provided its own program_name rather than
using the progname module, which is why progname ended up in the test
library rather than the main library).
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHX98784KuGfSFAYARAhl1AJ45xGvb7Ljh5eX2/Wyw6mV5xPn4VQCgl19o
IF+ZoBueRACfqS75ITPunVY=
=h3Hx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: no license on some test modules, (continued)
- Re: no license on some test modules, Bruno Haible, 2007/12/07
- Re: no license on some test modules, Bruno Haible, 2007/12/10
- Re: no license on some test modules, Jim Meyering, 2007/12/10
- Re: no license on some test modules, Eric Blake, 2007/12/10
- Re: no license on some test modules, Eric Blake, 2007/12/11
- Re: no license on some test modules, Jim Meyering, 2007/12/11
- Re: no license on some test modules, Eric Blake, 2007/12/11
- Re: no license on some test modules, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/12/12
- Re: no license on some test modules,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: no license on some test modules, Eric Blake, 2007/12/12
- Re: no license on some test modules, Bruno Haible, 2007/12/26
- Re: no license on some test modules, Bruno Haible, 2007/12/26