This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [PATCH] Check for existence of asprintf and vasprintf
- From: Ulf Hermann <ulf dot hermann at qt dot io>
- To: elfutils-devel at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:18:53 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Check for existence of asprintf and vasprintf
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ulf dot hermann at qt dot io;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qtcompany.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-qt-io; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=0SL52mFumGhyYnUCoyI1RiqVHoFUSWoPtFl1B95yEFk=; b=Nz6JnAv1xONSaFF/5Vm5EOInoRSfX/VCUjVAjY4J9SyWMLYUl494gZPDGCwpLotivvnkizNSx71kjjjrLLZizb11w4oLusu5q2Tzrm8wB5cX2AjCk4HSEQXIaoiBtwcgmjGRusLfRLhK3MygIhf/IbaCkfeiz/B5v7q3unoO4bU=
- References: <4efb45a7-3035-67eb-d61e-62e795afd881@qt.io> <20170222144004.GV28432@vapier> <3716c28b-6478-ee4d-50cf-0ef43e8196f3@qt.io> <20170222163249.GW28432@vapier> <59040cc2-f681-7610-5115-9a7c6c94b6c9@qt.io> <20170222170356.GX28432@vapier>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
First, I'm not sure if we want to import the respective gnulib modules directly into the elfutils code base or if you want me to do this in my fork. In the latter case the issue is settled as there is no value for me in jumping through hoops if the code is not going to be upstreamed anyway. So, for now I'm assuming we're talking about importing gnulib modules into the elfutils code base.
> gnulib-tool has a --lgpl=[...] flag so you can automatically abort if
> the desired license compatibility level isn't met. so you don't have
> to directly review every module if it isn't aborting.
Are you aware that for most of those modules, building them into elfutils restricts the license choices for the resulting combination? Any non-trivial combination of the required modules with elfutils makes the result de facto GPLv3 only. GPLv3 is fine for me as perfparser is also GPLv3, but as elfutils so far is LGPLv3+/GPLv2+ I'm wondering if we want to do this. In fact, when just doing the usual "configure/make/make install" procedure without reviewing the intermediate results, a user would have no way of knowing what license applies to the binaries. IMO that is bad and will certainly lead to problems somewhere down the line.
Ulf