On Wednesday 25 November 2009 16:25:54 Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 November 2009 13:43:34 Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 25 November 2009 12:13:56 Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >>>> I'm reluctant to use this code on every OS, as its not my code, and > >>>> the author might not like that, as this does no error checking. But it > >>>> would be good to implement it when atoll() is not in the library. > >>> > >>> check out the gnulib project > >> > >> Thank you Mike, I will do that. I assume that will provide an > >> implementation for atoll(). But is the rest of my logic ok? > > > > while your logic looked ok, you dont need to worry about it with gnulib. > > not only does it provide atoll replacements, but it takes care of the > > configure tests and enabling it as needed as well. your source code > > shouldnt need to change -- it can be written to assume atoll exists. > > it's a pretty badass project. > > -mike > > A big problem is gnulib is GPL3 - I need to code to be GPL2, so I can not > use the library. no, specific modules have different licenses. review the license for the specific module you wish to import, or use the --lgpl2 option to the gnulib- tool script so it'll abort early if importing something with gpl3. if a module you want is under gpl3 only, you can always ask to have it be allowed under the lgpl2. it isnt an uncommon request. > The second issue is that I am not totally convinced the person who wrote > that code would appreciate all the dependencies of gnublib. > > I've suggested I convert his 'Configure' script to one which uses > autoconf/automake. I think simplicity is needed here. I can't see him > objecting to a few lines of C inserted, but the code in gnulib has various > dependencies. It also calls strtoll() which does not exist, so that too > would have to be built. > > The author of the code does not use autoconf/automake, but said he would my > changes as long as he could make changes easily. I'm a bit worried he might > just prefer his 'Configure' script anyway, which works well for him. > > I would like to avoid having m4 macros, and anything else that makes it > more difficult for someone to understand. if you arent using autoconf, i'm not sure why you're posting to the autoconf list. gnulib really doesnt add any dependencies above autoconf/automake, and those are pretty basic as it is. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
