[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Dragora-users] License Question

From: Matias Fonzo
Subject: Re: [Dragora-users] License Question
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 09:07:37 -0300
User-agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.6

Hello John U.,
El 2020-07-10 21:26, John U escribió:
Wow, sounds good!. Please let us know more about your fork, where it lives, etc. to see if we can help you as I also know there are some people interested in making Dragora support other C libraries.

Sure, currently it lives on Github
(https://github.com/junland/dragora-glibc). I stripped most of the
late process packaging of the OS so that I have a cleaner workspace,
also most of the work is being done on stage 1 and stage 2, I believe
last time I built it it got through stage 1, but on stage 2 of gcc it
couldn't find libstdc++ for aarch64 (Right now I've only been testing
aarch64 and x86_64). So I'm still looking around to see where it's
hanging up. Had to squash the commits because I had messed something
up so most of the history is gone, however the only thing that changed
is the replacement of glibc instead of musl and some minor changes to
other steps.

Thanks for the info.

I think you mean, stage 0 and stage 1. Anyway, I've looked quickly, and the introduction of glibc on the stages seems to be fine.

Regarding the error with libstdc++ I don't think it will work since there is still work to be done, such as renaming the target names for glibc, adjusting the compiler options to look through glibc, it would be helpful to avoid the musl patches in this case as well.

It's not hard to do, but once it's done we have to test everything to see if we can get a positive result, of course. :-)

Since I have it on Github I will probably look into adding Github
actions for automated builds as I use Jenkins at home which isn't
publicly accessible.

Many of us only have an account there to collaborate or report bugs on projects *hosted only* in github. For a better cooperation we have the repository at notabug.org[1], which is ethically better than Github and compatible with our philosophy,

[1] https://notabug.org/dragora

That's correct about the Apache License and the GPLv3 License.

The criteria is that we are following the recommendation from GNU for licenses when the code is small (around 300~, see "Small Programs" under[1]); the rest (when is not less) applies to the GPLv3 for the code in Dragora.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

Ah okay, had to think about that a little too much. It's a Friday not
at 100% today. Thanks for the clarification!

Using the "SPDX-License-Identifier" is not bad, but it would be better to use the current format we have been using, with the license statement. This is to have uniformity when incorporating or in case that you want to merge the changes in Dragora...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]