This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH 001/114] Add initial port for Phoenix-RTOS.
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: Jakub Sejdak <jakub dot sejdak at phoesys dot com>
- Cc: Sebastian Huber <sebastian dot huber at embedded-brains dot de>, newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/114] Add initial port for Phoenix-RTOS.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1460370132-4880-1-git-send-email-jakub dot sejdak at phoesys dot com> <570CBA29 dot 2040200 at embedded-brains dot de> <CAFvk=0vKpZ=fVOHv-k46B3rOMrDP8p1K1eRA4O0oCD=Bf3Uztg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFvk=0tyD=crt5v77xzkzyt7MTXdXCTNZ7w4D10NKq32iE6=8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <571092E4 dot 3050507 at embedded-brains dot de> <CAFvk=0sFaYBaKhQDx8QeD23WaO=oi4A3p-U0qQUMAL=EVv2hJQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
Hi Jakub,
They are not rejected. You did submit 114 patches to look at to be fair and a number of
them require loading. I am just looking at it today.
Licensing as LGPL is not an issue if you are building a shared library form of the library.
Otherwise, any statically linked application using your library must be licensed LGPL. In the case of x86-linux,
the files were taken directly from glibc at the time and we do build a shared library.
If your code has been copied/taken from LGPL sources, then you can't relicense, but if you are the original
owner, you should relicense with a more-relaxed license as I notice your code does not enable
shared library support in configure.host
-- Jeff J.
----- Original Message -----
> So question to Corrina or anyone else who is responsible for
> maintenance: what should I do now to have my patches applied? Or are
> they already rejected?
> If you wish I can send another set with changed/removed license in
> each file, but this will generate another huge set of emails.
> As for duplicated headers: this shouldn't be much of a problem,
> because the same situation is, as I see, already in Linux port.
> This has no impact on Cygwin, RTEMS or FreeBSD builds.
>
> Later on, after publishing this (and also patches to binutils & gcc)
> we can think about reducing headers duplication.
>
> time_t is currently defined in kernel header as typedef from int.
>