Greetings! I've uploaded a gcl and maxima closing this to see how it goes. This will require changing the build-depends of every reverse gcl dependency, which is a little annoying but ok I suppose. The obvious alternative is to stick with readline and indicate that the binary is gclv3, as I do not think we have any gplv2 *only* code (checking this). The latest standard for the debian/copyright file refers to source files only. In fact I do not see how it could do otherwise, as say someone revives libreadline-gplv2 and runs maxima with that installed -- one cannot figure out the binary license until it is actually run. Hence the GCL runtime banner, which could be extended for this purpose I suppose. But in any case, I no longer understand the premise of this bug, unless it was your understanding that the source was gplv2 *only* instead of "or any later version". To my (extremely limited) understanding, we do not have a systematic way to track binary licenses which can only be determined at runtime in Debian.
If I have overlooked anything, my humblest apologies -- am eager to be enlightened further. Take care, Bastian Germann <bastiangerm...@fishpost.de> writes: > Hi Camm, > > I think the runtime cannot distinguish between libraries because it is > the library that gcl is linked with that is loaded. You can also > compile gcl with build dependency libeditreadline-dev if you remove > the RL_READLINE_VERSION check that is introduced with patch > Version_2_6_13pre12. Additionally you could remove "READLINE" from the > GPL banner then (not necessary). > > I see that you are also the gcl maintainer, so you can coordinate > uploads of maxima and gcl linked with libedit. > > Thanks, > Bastian > > Am 12.10.21 um 16:07 schrieb Camm Maguire: >> Greetings, and thanks for this! >> It would be nice to migrate to editreadline. GCL at present >> constructs >> a binary license banner indicating GPL'ed components. How would runtime >> gcl distinguish between these two libraries of the same name? >> Take care, >> Bastian Germann <bastiangerm...@fishpost.de> writes: >> >>> Control: found -1 5.44.0-3 >>> >>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 18:48:19 +0100 Bastian Germann >>> <bastiangerm...@fishpost.de> wrote: >>>> However, that is orphaned in Debian, so libeditreadline-dev should >>>> be preferred, which does not compile with your package without any >>>> patch. It links with the BSD-licensed libedit library which is a >>>> readline replacement. >>> >>> The current version compiles with libeditreadline-dev without any patch. >>> I do not see the build influenced by it and guess libreadline is still >>> loaded via gcl. >>> Can you please comment on this? > > > -- Camm Maguire c...@maguirefamily.org ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
