John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Thomas Heller wrote: > [...] >> As I said in the other thread (where the discussion should probably be >> continued anyway): >> >> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060113.html >> >> only aclocal.m4 isn't clear to me about the license. Anyway, it could >> be that this file isn't needed after all - I don't know enough about the >> GNU toolchain to be sure. Can anyone comment on this? > >>From 'info autoconf': > > | The Autoconf macros are defined in several files. Some of the files > | are distributed with Autoconf; `autoconf' reads them first. Then it > | looks for the optional file `acsite.m4' in the directory that contains > | the distributed Autoconf macro files, and for the optional file > | `aclocal.m4' in the current directory. Those files can contain your > | site's or the package's own Autoconf macro definitions (*note Writing > [...] > > So, I assume aclocal.m4 is under the same license as the rest of the > libffi you're using.
I cannot uinderstand your reasoning. How can 'info autoconf' incluence the license of the aclocal.m4 file? Or do I misunderstand something? Given that all kind of *nix experts are here on this list - can someone tell if aclocal.m4 is needed for building libffi at all or not? Thomas _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
