I forgot about this discussion for a while...
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 12:36:46PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Later on, when it was realized that a fix is needed, it was decided to wait
for Autoconf
Hello again,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:33:21AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
I'm afraid we need a design document for the solution.
Simon, perhaps you could volunteer.
... or you can just wait. I think I have something in mind now,
and hopefully I'll write it down sometimes next week.
Have
Hi,
I don't say I'm excited about the AC_LIBSOURCE macro, ...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:02:24AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I'm not sure what the supposed advantage with
AC_LIBSOURCES was compared to the old scheme.
... but I think I do remember what was the advantage:
Imagine that a new
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I don't say I'm excited about the AC_LIBSOURCE macro, ...
To understand what I'm writing below: I think AC_LIBSOURCE probably is
the right solution, but it would have been nice to introduce it after
the autoconf/automake/libtool/m4 releases had
Julien PUYDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul Eggert a écrit :
Julien PUYDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stepan Kasal a écrit :
I suggest that you get the files from gnulib CVS on savannah.
Those are GPL and not LGPL ;
No, they can be released under either the GPL or the LGPL.
If you use
