This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH 001/114] Add initial port for Phoenix-RTOS.
- From: Jakub Sejdak <jakub dot sejdak at phoesys dot com>
- To: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- Cc: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:48:00 +0200
- 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> <281088438 dot 4815603 dot 1460742796876 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com>
Can Jeff or Corrina summarize status of applying my patches? We have
some business targets that depend on those patches and I need to know
more or less how long will it take.
As for licensing, we do not support shared libraries for now and that
is why it is disabled at build time.
Thanks in advance,
2016-04-15 19:53 GMT+02:00 Jeff Johnston <email@example.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.