bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#22086: 25.1.50; [PATCH] Integrate the musl hybrid malloc patch for e


From: Rich Felker
Subject: bug#22086: 25.1.50; [PATCH] Integrate the musl hybrid malloc patch for elf systems
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:26:07 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:16:41PM +0100, Wolfgang Jenkner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16 2015, Paul Eggert wrote:
> 
> > Those patches look reasonable, except that one is listed as being by
> > Rich Felker, who has not signed copyright papers for GNU Emacs as far
> > as I know. I'll CC: this to him to give him a heads-up. Rich, would
> > you mind transferring copyright to that patch to the FSF? Here's
> > a link:
> >
> > http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22086;msg=5;att=3;filename=0004-Add-musl-patch-to-support-HYBRID_MALLOC-on-elf-syste.patch
> 
> 
> Rich Felker has asked me in private mail (please, please CC your replies
> to address@hidden) to clarify the authorship of that patch.
> I actually stated in the commit message
> 
>     Except for build system fixes this is essentially the same as
> 
>     
> http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/tree/testing/emacs/musl.patch?id=d6f211ec868df4657c745b8ba2bae77b2a7fb7f6
> 
> So, I wrote the build system fixes, and, strictly speaking, only the two
> lines in src/unexelf.c which declare and initialize bss_sbrk_did_unexec
> are directly from the original "Alpine Linux" patch above.
> 
> I can split the patch accordingly and ascribe only the latter part to
> Rich Felker if this is preferred.  The original patch still helped me to
> quickly find where I had to change something; this is why a attributed
> the whole patch to Rich Felker as it is just an expansion, as it were,
> of his version.

I'm not concerned with how it's split or attributed as long as the FSF
is fine with it. I just wanted to avoid misrepresenting parts that I
did not actually write when describing my changes for copyright
assignment. But this does solve my confusion about why I thought the
patch was trivial -- my original version was hardly anything but some
//'s and #if 0's.

Assuming you already have the proper assignment on file, does it
suffice for me to just mention that parts of the patch are your work?

Rich





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]