On 22.11.2009 19:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthias Klose:
On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
this issue as critic
Hi Florian,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
> > issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
> > this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
> My personal impressio
* Matthias Klose:
> On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Steve Langasek:
>>
>>> It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
>>> issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
>>> this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
>>
>> My perso
On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
My personal impression is that Debian does not
* Steve Langasek:
> It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
> issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
> this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
My personal impression is that Debian does not view this issue as
critical, either. Swi
Hi all,
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Starting with version 4.4, the FSF the licenses the GCC run-time
> library with a special exception:
> | Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional
> | permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exce
On 16.08.2009 10:50, Luk Claes wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpret the exce
Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Florian Weimer:
>>
>>> I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
>>> clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
>>> for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably bes
* Kalle Olavi Niemitalo:
> Please consider also the effect of GCC 4.4 on GPLv2-only applications,
> where the application's licence requires source code under GPLv2,
> including the source code of libgcc if GCC accompanies the executable,
> but the source code of libgcc in GCC 4.4 is not available
Matthias Klose writes:
> Apparently there's no feedback yet from the FSF. This issue should not
> prevent upgrading GCC to 4.4 for squeeze.
Please consider also the effect of GCC 4.4 on GPLv2-only applications,
where the application's licence requires source code under GPLv2,
including the sourc
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to
make GCC 4.4 the default comp
* Florian Weimer:
> I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
> clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
> for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to
> make GCC 4.4 the default compiler in sid/squeeze.
For the record,
"Stéphane Glondu" wrote:
So one could even
make a proprietary compiler using C as an intermediate langage, and GCC
for the final stage, I guess.
Comeau C++'s GNU/Linux builds do exactly that. (In general it uses the local
C compiler as a slightly higher level assembler. This saves them the
* Josselin Mouette:
> Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 14:35 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
>> At least with a strict interpretation, the run-time exception suffers
>> from a significant issue with compilers which are not licensed under a
>> GPLv3-compatible license (such as the GPLv2, or the QPL), an
Le vendredi 10 avril 2009 à 14:35 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> At least with a strict interpretation, the run-time exception suffers
> from a significant issue with compilers which are not licensed under a
> GPLv3-compatible license (such as the GPLv2, or the QPL), and which
> are implemented
On 10-04-2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sylvain Le Gall:
>
>>> byterun/ints.c, function caml_int64_div, the I64_div macro. This is
>>> expanded into a plain division operator, and that is compiled into a
>>> run-time library call by GCC.
>>>
>>
>> I64_div is a function defined either in byterun/
* Sylvain Le Gall:
>> byterun/ints.c, function caml_int64_div, the I64_div macro. This is
>> expanded into a plain division operator, and that is compiled into a
>> run-time library call by GCC.
>>
>
> I64_div is a function defined either in byterun/int64_emul.h o
> byterun/int64_native.h. Readin
On 10-04-2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sylvain Le Gall:
>
>>> But in Debian, we compile with GCC. And for the Int64 module,
>>> functionality from libgcc2.c gets compiled into the binary. (This is
>>> just the example I've verified.)
>
>> Int64 module is under LGPL + static link exception (and
* Sylvain Le Gall:
>> But in Debian, we compile with GCC. And for the Int64 module,
>> functionality from libgcc2.c gets compiled into the binary. (This is
>> just the example I've verified.)
> Int64 module is under LGPL + static link exception (and everything
> related to runtime library). Doe
On 10-04-2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stéphane Glondu:
>
>> * The runtime (ocamlrun) is a pure C program, that can be compiled with
>>any C compiler. Customized runtimes (with functions implemented in C)
>>can be generated; in this case, a C file might be generated by
>>ocamlc{,.op
* Stéphane Glondu:
> * The runtime (ocamlrun) is a pure C program, that can be compiled with
>any C compiler. Customized runtimes (with functions implemented in C)
>can be generated; in this case, a C file might be generated by
>ocamlc{,.opt}, and this file is handled the same way as
Florian Weimer a écrit :
> Starting with version 4.4, the FSF the licenses the GCC run-time
> library with a special exception: [...]
A few precisions:
* OCaml doesn't depend on any GCC-specific feature. It works with any
C compiler.
* There are 4 compilers for Objective Caml:
- ocamlc,
Starting with version 4.4, the FSF the licenses the GCC run-time
library with a special exception:
| Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional
| permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version
| 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
The exceptio
23 matches
Mail list logo
