Re: relax setenv license

2010-09-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Eric, > It would be handy to use this module in netcf, which is an LGPLv2+ project. As usual, I ask: can't 'netcf' move from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+? But I see [1] that netcf is a dependency of libvirt, and we've already seen that libvirt doesn't want to change its license. > I'm okay with my cont

relax setenv license

2010-09-22 Thread Eric Blake
Right now, setenv is LGPLv3+. However: It only depends on LGPLv2+ modules. It existed before the gnulib swap to LGPLv3+. It is a relatively common system function. It would be handy to use this module in netcf, which is an LGPLv2+ project. I'm okay with my contributions being relaxed to LGPLv2+

Re: new module 'termios'

2010-09-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Eric Blake wrote: > Any objection to making this be LGPLv2+, to match the licensing of all > the other replacement headers? No problem. Done: 2010-09-22 Bruno Haible termios: Relax license. * modules/termios (License): Change to LGPLv2+. Requested by Eric Blake. ---

Re: threadlib vs. pthread modules

2010-09-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/22/10 08:18, Bruno Haible wrote: > Would you (in coreutils, sort) be willing to use such an API that is > slightly different from POSIX, but much closer to POSIX than > 'lock', 'tls', 'cond', 'thread', 'yield' are now? Yes, that sounds like a better option, thanks! Two further thoughts.

Re: new module 'termios'

2010-09-22 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/16/2010 06:07 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: As a preparation for the soon-to-come module 'tcgetsid', I need a module that allows to add function declarations to the file. So far this is just boilerplate. Any objection to making this be LGPLv2+, to match the licensing of all the other replacem

Re: threadlib vs. pthread modules

2010-09-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, > > You can do so by inserting > > gl_use_threads_default=no > > in your configure.ac, before the invocations of gl_INIT_EARLY and gl_INIT. > > Thanks, I didn't know that. I tried it ... > Also, it'd be helpful to document gl_use_threads_default. Well, I did not know about it either,

Re: [PATCH] fix infinite loop in mbmemcasecoll

2010-09-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Pádraig, > I was testing multi-byte enhancements to coreutils/join with: > LC_ALL=en_US.utf8 join -i <(env printf '1\x00\n') <(env printf '2\x00\n') > and noticed it spun the CPU because of the NUL char. > The attached fixes the issue for me. This function is supposed > to skip over NUL chars l

Re: [PATCH] (x)memcoll: minor tweaks

2010-09-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert fixed the memcoll0 description on 2010-07-12: > > -/* Compare S1 (with length S1LEN) and S2 (with length S2LEN) according > - to the LC_COLLATE locale. S1 and S2 must both end in a null byte. > +/* Compare S1 (with size S1SIZE) and S2 (with length S2SIZE) according > + to the LC_

Re: no pthread_spinlock_t on Mac OS 10.6.4

2010-09-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/22/2010 01:18 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Actually this patch seems to make no discernable difference to the behaviour > of the build in both cases above. That's odd, because adding "gl_use_threads_default=no" should cause "configure" to default to --disable-threads behavior. What is the

Re: no pthread_spinlock_t on Mac OS 10.6.4

2010-09-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 09/22/2010 12:46 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > After a `git reset --hard master && git clean -d -x -f', and > applying the patch again freshly, it works perfectly well, and without > the problems of undefined symbols like the previous patch. OK, thanks, I pushed that patch, here: http://git.sav

Re: no pthread_spinlock_t on Mac OS 10.6.4

2010-09-22 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Paul, On 22 Sep 2010, at 02:03, Paul Eggert wrote: > Gary, could you please also try the following patch to coreutils, > either by itself, gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -I../../src -I../lib -I../../lib-g -O2 -MT sort.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/sort.Tpo -c -o sort.o ../../src/sort.c ../../src/sort.c:243:

Re: no pthread_spinlock_t on Mac OS 10.6.4

2010-09-22 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Paul, Thanks for the swift response. On 22 Sep 2010, at 12:33, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 09/21/2010 10:11 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >> But the patch causes a bizarre and apparently unrelated compilation >> error: >> >> ; make V=1 >> gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -I../lib -g -O2 -MT sigprocmas