Re: How to work around a missing library function?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 25 November 2009 16:25:54 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 November 2009 13:43:34 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 25 November 2009 12:13:56 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> >>>> I'm reluctant to use this code on every OS, as its not my code, and
> >>>> the author might not like that, as this does no error checking. But it
> >>>> would be good to implement it when atoll() is not in the library.
> >>>
> >>> check out the gnulib project
> >>
> >> Thank you Mike, I will do that. I assume that will provide an
> >>  implementation for atoll(). But is the rest of my logic ok?
> >
> > while your logic looked ok, you dont need to worry about it with gnulib. 
> > not only does it provide atoll replacements, but it takes care of the
> > configure tests and enabling it as needed as well.  your source code
> > shouldnt need to change -- it can be written to assume atoll exists. 
> > it's a pretty badass project.
> > -mike
> 
> A big problem is gnulib is GPL3 - I need to code to be GPL2, so I can not
>  use the library.

no, specific modules have different licenses.  review the license for the 
specific module you wish to import, or use the --lgpl2 option to the gnulib-
tool script so it'll abort early if importing something with gpl3.

if a module you want is under gpl3 only, you can always ask to have it be 
allowed under the lgpl2.  it isnt an uncommon request.

> The second issue is that I am not totally convinced the person who wrote
>  that code would appreciate all the dependencies of gnublib.
> 
> I've suggested I convert his 'Configure' script to one which uses
> autoconf/automake. I think simplicity is needed here. I can't see him
>  objecting to a few lines of C inserted, but the code in gnulib has various
>  dependencies. It also calls strtoll() which does not exist, so that too
>  would have to be built.
> 
> The author of the code does not use autoconf/automake, but said he would my
> changes as long as he could make changes easily. I'm a bit worried he might
>  just prefer his 'Configure' script anyway, which works well for him.
> 
> I would like to avoid having m4 macros, and anything else that makes it
>  more difficult for someone to understand.

if you arent using autoconf, i'm not sure why you're posting to the autoconf 
list.  gnulib really doesnt add any dependencies above autoconf/automake, and 
those are pretty basic as it is.
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.