Re: [fluid-dev] New debian/ubuntu package available for testing

[josh]

Quoting David Henningsson <address@hidden>:
> Bernat Arlandis i Mañó skrev:
> > David Henningsson escrigué:
> > > These rows is what builds the fluidsynth executable:
> > >
> > > /bin/bash ../libtool --tag=CC   --mode=link gcc  -Wall  -O2
> > > -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions -Wall -W
> > > -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align
> > > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-unused -Winline   -o fluidsynth
> > > fluidsynth-fluidsynth.o libfluidsynth.la -lpthread
> > >
> > > libtool: link: gcc -Wall -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops
> > > -finline-functions -Wall -W -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast
> > > -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-unused -Winline -o
> > > .libs/fluidsynth fluidsynth-fluidsynth.o  ./.libs/libfluidsynth.so
> > > /usr/lib/liblash.so -luuid -lreadline -lncurses -ljack
> > > /usr/lib/libasound.so -lm -ldl -lpulse-simple -lpulse
> > > /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so -lrt /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so -lpthread
> > > -pthread
> > >
> > > Do we need all these "-l":s above, and if we don't, how do we get rid of
> > > them? (Hmm, ticket #38 suddenly comes to mind...)
> > It seems like autotools gets the dependencies for the project as a whole
> > and then applies them to every piece built. There should be some way to
> > tell which dependencies are for the lib and which ones for the
> > executable, but I don't know. Have you asked DD?
>
> No, as you're the only one that has worried about it, and it seems that
> the problem originates from upstream. My personal guess is that the
> warning is quite minor and can be safely ignored.


Its libtool that is adding in all the dependencies, which are  
dependencies of libfluidsynth.  I think it is a rather minor issue.   
Those warnings are likely for the purpose of weeding out unnecessary  
dependencies for a package.  Since fluidsynth and libfluidsynth are  
part of the same package, this doesn't really help, unless a library  
is getting linked that both libfluidsynth and fluidsynth don't  
actually depend on.


> > > dnl The following script checks for ncurses support.
> > > dnl I copied and adapted it from DataDisplayDebugger's (DDD)
> > > dnl configure.in, written by Andreas Zeller <address@hidden>.
> > >
> > > DDD is GPL, and so is their configure.ac. This should not render
> > > fluidsynth GPL though, since configure.ac is not linked with fluidsynth,
> > > but I don't really know what else gets tainted by GPL, given this.
> > You're way too much picky with the licensing issues. Anyone (even Debian
> > developers) would pick upstream's word as stated in the source code and
> > documentation unless it's proved wrong by someone.
>
> I've checked DDD's configure.ac and it is GPL (v2+) - and not stating
> that in our configure.ac is a GPL violation. I don't think the problem
> is larger than that we could add the necessary GPL notice.


I don't see any reason to have configure.ac be LGPL, since that  
provides no advantage whatsoever over GPL.  We could just declare it  
GPL and be done with it.  I don't think there was ever a declared  
license for it and by using GPL code it would fall under GPL (and I  
wrote a huge portion of it anyways).  I think its somewhat silly to  
license configure.ac in the first place, since it really isn't rocket  
science, but it certainly doesn't hurt.


> > By playing the devil you're going against yourself and upstream.
>
> I'm here on double roles currently, both as a FluidSynth developer and
> as a Debian maintainer. I would appreciate if you could see me as a
> mediator, rather than a devil.
>
> Perhaps having both roles is bad, as it seems to cause some confusion
> sometimes. Let me know if you would prefer me giving up one of those tasks.
>
> // David


I think you are doing a fine job, so no worries.  This whole free  
software licensing thing is a mess though, in my opinion.  When you  
just want to write free software, its annoying to have to deal with  
the legal details of licenses.  Licenses which were created for the  
purpose of keeping software free and promoting open contribution and  
collaboration shouldn't impede those very same things.  Just my little  
rant, not meant to go any further.. ;)

Regards,

Josh