> 2024-09-25 Bruno Haible
>
> build-to-host.m4: Add some convenience macros.
More of the same kind:
2024-10-11 Bruno Haible
bison-i18n: Add support for mingw builds on Cygwin hosts.
* m4/bison-i18n.m4 (BISON_I18N): Define also BISON_LOCALEDIR_c and
BISON_L
- the value of INSTALLPREFIX,
- the value of INSTALLDIR.
Both need to be processed through gl_BUILD_TO_HOST.
These two patches do it, or document how to do it.
2024-09-25 Bruno Haible
relocatable-lib-lgpl: Add support for mingw builds on Cygwin hosts.
Reported by Michele Locat
Hi Simon,
> > -#define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED __attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
> > -#elif (defined _WIN32 && !defined __CYGWIN__) && BUILDING_SHARED &&
> > BUILDING_LIBFOO
> > -#define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED __declspec(dllexport)
> > -#elif (defined _WIN32 && !defined __CYGWIN__) && BUILDING_
Bruno Haible writes:
> -#define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED __attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
> -#elif (defined _WIN32 && !defined __CYGWIN__) && BUILDING_SHARED &&
> BUILDING_LIBFOO
> -#define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED __declspec(dllexport)
> -#elif (defined _WIN32 && !defined __CYGWIN__) && BUILDIN
I wrote:
> When building packages that contain shared libraries using libtool,
> each compilation unit is compiled twice: to FILE.o as a static
> object file, and to .libs/FILE.o for inclusion into a shared library.
> On Windows, the latter file is compiled with options -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC;
> libtoo
risk that two different lock instances exist
in the same process.
This patch implements it for the symbol defined by relocatable.c.
2023-09-05 Bruno Haible
relocatable-lib-lgpl: Don't export symbols from static MSVC .obj files.
Reported by Dmitry Bely in
2021-08-07 Bruno Haible
relocatable-lib-lgpl: Improve GCC 11 allocation-deallocation checking.
* lib/relocatable.h: Include .
(compute_curr_prefix): Declare that deallocation must happen through
'free'.
diff --git a/lib/relocatable.h b/lib/relocatab
On 5 April 2017 at 04:28, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:07:58AM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > [Ben: Ccing you on Bruno Haible's advice]
> >
> > Having gone through the changes I needed to make to my sources to use the
> > relocatable-lib-lgpl m
* lib/relocatable.c (relocatable): Change the license from LGPL, which
+ a special case so that the relocatable source files could be used
+ without gnulib-tool. They can still be used under the LGPL, using the
+ --lgpl option to gnulib-tool.
+
2017-04-02 Bruno Haible
relocatable-lib-lgpl
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:07:58AM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> [Ben: Ccing you on Bruno Haible's advice]
>
> Having gone through the changes I needed to make to my sources to use the
> relocatable-lib-lgpl module, here's a list of things I think should be
> docu
> Do you have any objection to updating the "default" licenses on the files
> to GPL so that there's no discrepancy with the gnulib documentation?
No objection. Fine with me.
Bruno
On 4 April 2017 at 10:21, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Reuben Thomas asks:
> > > This is because there are alternative instructions for using these
> files
> > > without gnulib-tool. (Although I don't know whether anyone still goes
> > > with these lengthy instructions; gnulib-tool is quite accepted
> n
Reuben Thomas asks:
> > This is because there are alternative instructions for using these files
> > without gnulib-tool. (Although I don't know whether anyone still goes
> > with these lengthy instructions; gnulib-tool is quite accepted nowadays.)
>
>
> Where are these instructions?
They are i
[Ben: Ccing you on Bruno Haible's advice]
Having gone through the changes I needed to make to my sources to use the
relocatable-lib-lgpl module, here's a list of things I think should be
documented in doc/relocatable-maint.texi. If they're agreed to be correct,
I'll prepare a
On 20 March 2017 at 23:11, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
> > That just leaves the discrepancy I noticed where relocatable.[ch]
> > specifically mention the LGPL in the versions in gnulib git, whereas the
> > manual says that all the git sources should mention the GPL.
>
> This is be
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> That just leaves the discrepancy I noticed where relocatable.[ch]
> specifically mention the LGPL in the versions in gnulib git, whereas the
> manual says that all the git sources should mention the GPL.
This is because there are alternative instructions for using these fil
On 20 March 2017 at 22:06, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding Gary in cc]
>
> Interesting - that file is not part of gnulib proper at the moment, but
> Gary's bootstrap project aims to be something that plays nicely with
> gnulib, and has the same directory layouts. In fact, the funclib.sh
> module in
are rewritten to be under GPL, even
>>> though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
>>
>> You mean, you want the copyright notice to say "LGPL" instead of "GPL"?
>>
>
> Yes. Since the sources are checked in already as LGPL (contrary to the
&g
On 20 March 2017 at 21:31, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
> > Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
> > forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
> > though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this
Hi Reuben,
> Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
> forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
> though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
You mean, you want the copyright notice to say "LGPL" ins
On 03/20/2017 08:04 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their
original forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be
under GPL, even though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
Sounds like a bug, yes. However, I did not
Although gnulib/lib/relocatable.[ch] are LGPL-licensed in their original
forms in the gnulib source tree, they are rewritten to be under GPL, even
though I ask for relocatable-lib-lgpl. Is this a bug?
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
I seem to have to add AC_CONFIG_LIBOBJ_DIR([lib]) to my configure.ac,
otherwise {LT}LIBOBJDIR is not set, and relocatable.c is not found when
building in the src directory of my project. But I don't find this
documented anywhere in gnulib. Should a note be added to
relocatable-lib{,-lgpl}, or
On 7 March 2017 at 12:19, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> I have read the documentation in gnulib, and also dug out the original
> announcement, coincidentally almost exactly 10 years old:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2003-03/msg00020.html
>
By the way, I noticed that Alexandre Duret-L
I am trying to use relocatable-lib-lgpl, to make Enchant relocatable.
(Enchant is a spell-checker library wrapper, itself a library, and it needs
to be able to find resources such as dictionaries at run-time, relative to
the library's location. See https://github.com/AbiWord/enchant/ )
I
There are libraries under GPL, which can use xalloc, and libraries under
LGPL, which cannot. I'm creating a module description for each case. The
code is the same.
2007-03-03 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* modules/relocatable-lib-lgpl: Renamed from modules/relo
26 matches
Mail list logo
