On 22/11/2011 Andre Fischer wrote:
On 21.11.2011 19:59, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Thanks for the information, but since "configure" is writing a wrong
(and potentially confusing) message, and the fix I sent is trivial and
totally harmless, why not just fix it? ...
You are absolutely right, and I w
On 21.11.2011 19:59, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Andre Fischer wrote:
good point but please keep in mind that this is a temporary workaround.
Much work is currently being done ... the --enable-copyleft switch
will not live for very long.
Thanks for the information, but since "configure" is writing
FWIW;
I have already touched that configure script more than
I want to already but I would favor reverting the
enable-copyleft switch: it is particularly wrong with
weak copyleft.
We should just remove the internal versions for anything
copyleft but let people use the preinstalled packages
that a
Andre Fischer wrote:
good point but please keep in mind that this is a temporary workaround.
Much work is currently being done ... the --enable-copyleft switch
will not live for very long.
Thanks for the information, but since "configure" is writing a wrong
(and potentially confusing) message,
Hi Andrea,
good point but please keep in mind that this is a temporary workaround.
Much work is currently being done to remove the category x license
code. When that is done we need a different switch to make the category
b license code (eg MPL) optional. Therefore the --enable-copyleft
sw
It seems that the "yes" and "no" messages corresponding to the
"--enable-copyleft" option are swapped in configure.in; this has no
impact on the build, but it gives the user a wrong feedback about the
options he specified.
The fix would just consist in swapping the "yes" and "no" messages; for
