[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: josh
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] New debian/ubuntu package available for testing
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 15:04:34 -0400
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.6)

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

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.. ;)



reply via email to

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