On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 02:41, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> We do not want to put 'progname' under LGPL license, because 'progname' is
> meant to be used in programs, not libraries, and for programs the GPL is
> the right license.
>
That makes sense.
But things have changed since 2013: Gnulib modules
Hi Reuben,
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 at 09:28, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
> > On 30 December 2013 08:18, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 30 December 2013 01:20, Paul Eggert wrote:
> >>
> >>> Reuben Thomas wrote:
> >>>
> It's been drawn to my attention that under some circumstances, gnulib
>
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 at 09:28, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 30 December 2013 08:18, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 December 2013 01:20, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>
>>> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>>
It's been drawn to my attention that under some circumstances, gnulib
fails
to include progna
On 30 December 2013 08:18, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
> On 30 December 2013 01:20, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> It's been drawn to my attention that under some circumstances, gnulib
>>> fails
>>> to include progname when it's needed
>>>
>>
>> That's documented here:
>>
>>
>> h
On 30 December 2013 01:20, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
>> It's been drawn to my attention that under some circumstances, gnulib
>> fails
>> to include progname when it's needed
>>
>
> That's documented here:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/error-
> and-prog
Reuben Thomas wrote:
It's been drawn to my attention that under some circumstances, gnulib fails
to include progname when it's needed
That's documented here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/error-and-progname.html
