[Python-Dev] DRAFT: python-dev Summary for 2006-01-01 through 2006-01-15

[Ronald Oussoren]

On 27-jan-2006, at 17:14, Thomas Heller wrote:

> 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?

aclocal.m4 is needed to build configure, it's a library of configure  
fragments.

I try to stay away from configure as far as possible so cannot say if  
those
fragments are  really needed.

Ronald

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2157 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060127/73605721/attachment-0001.bin