RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 27 17:14:31 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060153.html

John J Lee <jjl at pobox.com> 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

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060153.html below:

python-dev Summary for 2006-01-01 through 2006-01-15