2011/9/30 Jeremy Huddleston :
>> Er, sure, but that brings up my second point: the GPL restricts
>> redistribution, not use, so you are not required to "accept it" to use
>> GPL tools.
>
> Again, mirroring Alan's comment. IANAL. I just do what the Lawyers
> say. I am told not to touch GLPv3 wit
>>> So the original complaint, that he is "forced to accept the GPLv3
>>> to use autoconf" seems a little confused.
>>
>> From the 2.62 release notes at
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2008-04/msg2.html:
>>
>> """
>> Meanwhile, several source files within the Autoconf
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> The patch has a few problems currently, and a few things that can possibly
> be
> done better:
> - Mainly, that building libmesa.a currently fails.
> - Not sure how to
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> ---
> The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
> automake/libtool")
> ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
>
> This patch is an attempt to get the bal
Hi Matt,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> ---
> The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
> automake/libtool")
> ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
>
> This patch is an attempt to g
On Sep 28, 2011, at 23:28, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2011/9/29 Alan Coopersmith :
>>> _Why_ is the GPLv3 "not acceptable", when the GPLv2 was?
>>
>> Note his employer, which is well known as not accepting the GPLv3,
>> possibly due to it being a mobile phone manufacturer, and the GPLv3's
>> free pate
2011/9/29 Alan Coopersmith :
>> _Why_ is the GPLv3 "not acceptable", when the GPLv2 was?
>
> Note his employer, which is well known as not accepting the GPLv3,
> possibly due to it being a mobile phone manufacturer, and the GPLv3's
> free patent license grant not fitting well with the current mobil
On 09/28/11 09:58 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
On , Matt Turner wrote:
[1] http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-June/022724.html
Thanks, that explains the significance of 2.62 -- but it doesn't
actually explain the problem; it just says "In order to build it, I
would have to accept GPLv3 (wh
On , Matt Turner wrote:
> In short, 2.62 is the first version that includes GPLv3 tools to build
> autoconf, even though what is installed is GPLv2.
>
> [1] http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-June/022724.html
Thanks, that explains the significance of 2.62 -- but it doesn't
actually expla
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Gaetan Nadon writes:
>> - The minimum autoconf version should be 2.60. Features above 2.60
>> should not be used. Starting v 2.62 there is a license controversy
>
> What is that?
>
> [The NEWS file doesn't show any license changes in 2.62. Au
Gaetan Nadon writes:
> - The minimum autoconf version should be 2.60. Features above 2.60
> should not be used. Starting v 2.62 there is a license controversy
What is that?
[The NEWS file doesn't show any license changes in 2.62. Autoconf
itself switched to the GPLv3 in 2.65, but I'm not sure w
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 16:55 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > If you are moving towards a non-hacked automake world, the INSTALL variable
> > should not be used for mesa makefiles. It all depends on the end goals and
> > the motivation behind the
On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 15:41 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > I had a quick look, configure.ac is huge and has a big impact on Makefiles.
> > I think it should be reviewed and cleaned-up to understand how it affects
> > makefiles.
> >
> > Just a
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> The patch has a few problems currently, and a few things that can
> possibly be
> done better:
> - Mainly, that building libmesa.a currently fails.
> - Not sure how to handle shared/static dricore options.
> - libtool
On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:06 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
> automake/libtool")
> ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't
> ready.
>
> This patch is an attempt to get the ball rolling again. Without
> rippi
On 09/26/2011 03:05 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:38:10 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
diff --git a/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll b/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll
index cfd8926..dd7c68c 1
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:38:10 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> diff --git a/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll b/src/glsl/glsl_lexer.ll
> >> index cfd8926..dd7c68c 100644
> >> --- a/src/glsl/glsl_l
On 09/26/2011 08:29 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> I'd like to add other libs (hash table) at the src/ level, too, so a
> single helper lib that is "mesa's shared, non-mtypes-using stuff but not
> things that are really Mesa like the glsl compiler" would be nice.
Yeah, we really could use a src/util fol
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> Non-text part: multipart/mixed
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
>> > ---
>> > The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Co
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:36:02 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> > ---
> > The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
> > automake/libtool")
> > ended without anythi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> If you are moving towards a non-hacked automake world, the INSTALL variable
> should not be used for mesa makefiles. It all depends on the end goals and
> the motivation behind the conversion to automake which has not been
> explained yet.
Pe
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> I had a quick look, configure.ac is huge and has a big impact on Makefiles.
> I think it should be reviewed and cleaned-up to understand how it affects
> makefiles.
>
> Just a few examples of statements to investigate. Not that they are bad, b
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
> ---
> The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
> automake/libtool")
> ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
>
> This patch is an attempt to get the bal
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner
---
The last discussion about using automake ("[RFC] Convert mesa to
automake/libtool")
ended without anything happening, probably because the branch wasn't ready.
This patch is an attempt to get the ball rolling again. Without ripping out
the entire existing build sys
24 matches
Mail list logo
