Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 197 bytes --]

Hello,

As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright headers
of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later" to "GPL v3
or later".

Attached is a compressed patch.

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Update-sim-copyright-headers-from-GPLv2-or-later-to-.patch.xz --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 6604 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:26:41 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright headers
> of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later" to "GPL v3
> or later".

You can't do this without asking the copyright holders for permission first.

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> > As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright headers
> > of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later" to "GPL v3
> > or later".
> 
> You can't do this without asking the copyright holders for permission first.

I was told the contrary by Karl Berry, and asked to change.
IANAL, but the "or (at your option) any later version" should
give us the right to do so, right?

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:04:58 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> > > As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright headers
> > > of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later" to "GPL v3
> > > or later".
> > 
> > You can't do this without asking the copyright holders for permission first.
> 
> I was told the contrary by Karl Berry, and asked to change.
> IANAL, but the "or (at your option) any later version" should
> give us the right to do so, right?

IANAL either, but only the copyright holder can change the license.
And to me changing the coyright headers as proposed does effectively
change the license, since "GPL v3 or later" is more restrictive than
"GPL v2 or later".  Legal issues aside, I'd consider it impolite, even
dishonest, to change the license on somebody else's code without their
permission[1].

Mark

[1] By assigning copyright to the FSF we've given them explicit
    permission to change the license, so I see no issue (legally or
    morally) with making these changes for FSF-copyrighted files.

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> IANAL either, but only the copyright holder can change the license.
> And to me changing the coyright headers as proposed does effectively
> change the license, since "GPL v3 or later" is more restrictive than
> "GPL v2 or later".  Legal issues aside, I'd consider it impolite, even
> dishonest, to change the license on somebody else's code without their
> permission[1].

I will ask the FSF for official confirmation.

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> > IANAL either, but only the copyright holder can change the license.
> > And to me changing the coyright headers as proposed does effectively
> > change the license, since "GPL v3 or later" is more restrictive than
> > "GPL v2 or later".  Legal issues aside, I'd consider it impolite, even
> > dishonest, to change the license on somebody else's code without their
> > permission[1].
> 
> I will ask the FSF for official confirmation.

Actually, I had already asked. This is case gnu.org #690921.

| > I am one of the GDB Global Maintainers, and I have a question
| > regarding the right of changing the license on some of the files
| > in the GDB project. For some reasons that are unknown to me, the
| > FSF is not the copyright holder of some files in the simulator part
| > of GDB. For instance, we have sim/erc32/sis.h:
| >
| >  * This file is part of SIS.
| >  *
| >  * ERC32SIM, SPARC instruction simulator. Copyright (C) 1995 Jiri
| > Gaisler,
| >  * European Space Agency
| >  *
| >  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
| > modify it under
| >  * the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
| > Free
| >  * Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
| > option)
| >  * any later version.
| >
| > It seems that we're explicitly allowed to upgrade the licence to v3,
| > even if the file is copyright Jiri Gaisler.  Is that correct?
| 
| That is correct. That's strange that code was not assigned.  I'm a
| little confused by the 'European Space Agency' bit. Jiri just completed
| an assignment for GCC not too long ago, maybe it would be worthwhile to
| see if he wouldn't want to assign on GDB as well.  Thanks for your time.

Now, whether impolite or dishonest is not for me to judge. I am just
following the FSF's request. And FYI, all of this has been taking
hours of my time, soon to add up to days. I don't think I should
be asked to make a list of all involved parties, track them down,
and ask them whether they agree to the change or not. Especially
since the license they chose to use explicitly included permission
for us to do so.

That being said, if someone would like to step up for the group,
and volunteer to inform the various parties involved, I would
entertain the idea of backing the change out - provided that
the FSF is OK with that. And if we could also get them to assign
their past changes to the FSF, that would be awesome.

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2807 bytes --]

   > > As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright
   > > headers of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later"
   > > to "GPL v3 or later".
   > 
   > You can't do this without asking the copyright holders for
   > permission first.

   I was told the contrary by Karl Berry, and asked to change.  IANAL,
   but the "or (at your option) any later version" should give us the
   right to do so, right?

That is correct, here is a snippet from the GPL FAQ.  Though it is
only OK if the license either states "or any later version", or lacks
an explicit version -- then one may pick any version of the GPL.

| Why should programs say “Version 2 of the GPL or any later version”?
|
|     From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the
|     GPL—sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of
|     use not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a
|     requirement. (The last change was in 1991.) Using this “indirect
|     pointer” in each program makes it possible for us to change the
|     distribution terms on the entire collection of GNU software, when
|     we update the GPL.
|
|     If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to
|     discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders,
|     which would be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of
|     having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil.
|
|     Suppose a program says “Version 2 of the GPL or any later version”
|     and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version
|     gives additional permission, that permission will be available
|     immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL
|     version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the
|     current version of the program, because it can still be used under
|     GPL version 2. When a program says “Version 2 of the GPL or any
|     later version”, users will always be permitted to use it, and even
|     change it, according to the terms of GPL version 2—even after
|     later versions of the GPL are available.
|
|     If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be
|     obeyed for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 3
|     is available, the developers of most GPL-covered programs will
|     release subsequent versions of their programs specifying “Version
|     3 of the GPL or any later version”. Then users will have to follow
|     the tighter requirements in GPL version 3, for subsequent versions
|     of the program.
|
|     However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can
|     continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that
|     is their preference.

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

On Wednesday 19 December 2012 02:26:41 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> As per a request from the FSF, I have updated the copyright headers
> of the non-FSF-copyrighted files from "GPL v2 or later" to "GPL v3
> or later".

NAK on sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s.  that is code coming from the Linux kernel 
and licensing that under GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 would be entirely pointless 
(the Linux kernel isn't going GPLv3) and just cause me headaches.

the sim/bfin/aclocal.m4 change doesn't make sense as that is a generated file 
and it's changing the license on a macro that's been imported from an external 
project.  so it'll just get "reverted" next time the file gets regenerated.

i don't see a problem with the Makefile.in changes

for the others, i'm guessing this was a script based conversion ?  i'm not 
sure this can be blindly done as someone has to double check there aren't any 
GPLv2 specific files.  unlikely, and probably already problematic if such an 
issue exists, but still better to verify first ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

Mike,

Thanks for looking at the patch :).

> NAK on sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s.  that is code coming from the
> Linux kernel and licensing that under GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 would be
> entirely pointless (the Linux kernel isn't going GPLv3) and just cause
> me headaches.

I will revert the change for now, but I will also ask the FSF what
they want us to do. We were told explicitly that all files that
were GPLv2 or later should have been switched to GPLv3 or later.
One tiny change in the copyright header should be manageable, IMO,
particularly since you're already going to see a yearly change in
the copyright years as well.

> the sim/bfin/aclocal.m4 change doesn't make sense as that is a
> generated file and it's changing the license on a macro that's been
> imported from an external project.  so it'll just get "reverted" next
> time the file gets regenerated.

I don't understand exactly the status of this file. Can I just
regenerate the "reverted" version and the project will still work?

> for the others, i'm guessing this was a script based conversion ?  i'm
> not sure this can be blindly done as someone has to double check there
> aren't any GPLv2 specific files.  unlikely, and probably already
> problematic if such an issue exists, but still better to verify first
> ...

Yes, it was a script based conversion (or rather, perl one-liners).
But I used a regexp that verified that we had the option of switching
to a later version of the GPL. I scanned a large number of the changes,
but I did not check each one of them individually.

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 65 bytes --]

> I will revert the change for now,

Done as attached.

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Revert-GPL-version-change-in-linux-fixed-code.s.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1526 bytes --]

From 8216a3414edfb345886106a2ba33930823b8a81a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:15:57 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] Revert GPL version change in linux-fixed-code.s.

sim/bfin/ChangeLog:

	* linux-fixed-code.s: Revert the previous change changing
	the license from GPL v2 or later to GPL v3 or later.
---
 sim/bfin/ChangeLog          |    5 +++++
 sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
index 8283086..4c37829 100644
--- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
+++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2012-12-20  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
+
+	* linux-fixed-code.s: Revert the previous change changing
+	the license from GPL v2 or later to GPL v3 or later.
+
 2012-07-31  Mike Frysinger  <vapier@gentoo.org>
 
 	* machs.c (bf54x_roms): Pass 0x1000 to alias field of BFROM, and
diff --git a/sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s b/sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s
index db8c6ca..060f56f 100644
--- a/sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s
+++ b/sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 
    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-   the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
+   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.
 
    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1534 bytes --]

On Wednesday 19 December 2012 22:57:50 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > NAK on sim/bfin/linux-fixed-code.s.  that is code coming from the
> > Linux kernel and licensing that under GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 would be
> > entirely pointless (the Linux kernel isn't going GPLv3) and just cause
> > me headaches.
> 
> I will revert the change for now, but I will also ask the FSF what
> they want us to do. We were told explicitly that all files that
> were GPLv2 or later should have been switched to GPLv3 or later.
> One tiny change in the copyright header should be manageable, IMO,
> particularly since you're already going to see a yearly change in
> the copyright years as well.

what i mean is worrying about the flow of code.  if they aren't both GPLv2 
based, i now have to worry about people being able to make the claim that i'm 
committing GPLv3 sim code to the GPLv2 kernel and tainting it.  considering 
the code in question, doing GPLv3 on it will gain nothing.

> > the sim/bfin/aclocal.m4 change doesn't make sense as that is a
> > generated file and it's changing the license on a macro that's been
> > imported from an external project.  so it'll just get "reverted" next
> > time the file gets regenerated.
> 
> I don't understand exactly the status of this file. Can I just
> regenerate the "reverted" version and the project will still work?

next time someone runs `aclocal` (like me), it'll blow away your changes as it 
copies m4 macros from files in /usr/share/ and into the aclocal.m4.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

> what i mean is worrying about the flow of code.  if they aren't both
> GPLv2 based, i now have to worry about people being able to make the
> claim that i'm committing GPLv3 sim code to the GPLv2 kernel and
> tainting it.  considering the code in question, doing GPLv3 on it will
> gain nothing.

I have relayed the above to the FSF.

> > I don't understand exactly the status of this file. Can I just
> > regenerate the "reverted" version and the project will still work?
> 
> next time someone runs `aclocal` (like me), it'll blow away your
> changes as it copies m4 macros from files in /usr/share/ and into the
> aclocal.m4.

I ran aclocal myself, and it blew away more than just my change,
but the entire block of code. Does it mean that only you are able
to regenerate this file properly?

Attached is what I applied to revert this part of patch.

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Revert-GPL-version-change-in-sim-bfin-aclocal.m4.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1596 bytes --]

From f17797f9f4115cef8c2c4142a209a777e9962175 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:00:36 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] Revert GPL version change in sim/bfin/aclocal.m4

sim/bfin/ChangeLog:

        * aclocal.m4: Revert the previous change changing
        the license from GPL v2 or later to GPL v3 or later
        (this file was generated).
---
 sim/bfin/ChangeLog  |    6 ++++++
 sim/bfin/aclocal.m4 |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
index 4c37829..5026a60 100644
--- a/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
+++ b/sim/bfin/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 2012-12-20  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
 
+	* aclocal.m4: Revert the previous change changing
+	the license from GPL v2 or later to GPL v3 or later
+	(this file was generated).
+
+2012-12-20  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
+
 	* linux-fixed-code.s: Revert the previous change changing
 	the license from GPL v2 or later to GPL v3 or later.
 
diff --git a/sim/bfin/aclocal.m4 b/sim/bfin/aclocal.m4
index 1e0db3b..1b2d293 100644
--- a/sim/bfin/aclocal.m4
+++ b/sim/bfin/aclocal.m4
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 #
 # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 # (at your option) any later version.
 #
 # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

On Thursday 20 December 2012 00:03:21 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > what i mean is worrying about the flow of code.  if they aren't both
> > GPLv2 based, i now have to worry about people being able to make the
> > claim that i'm committing GPLv3 sim code to the GPLv2 kernel and
> > tainting it.  considering the code in question, doing GPLv3 on it will
> > gain nothing.
> 
> I have relayed the above to the FSF.

thanks

> > > I don't understand exactly the status of this file. Can I just
> > > regenerate the "reverted" version and the project will still work?
> > 
> > next time someone runs `aclocal` (like me), it'll blow away your
> > changes as it copies m4 macros from files in /usr/share/ and into the
> > aclocal.m4.
> 
> I ran aclocal myself, and it blew away more than just my change,
> but the entire block of code. Does it mean that only you are able
> to regenerate this file properly?

do you have pkg-config installed ?  you'd need that (since it provides pkg.m4) 
in order for `aclocal` to work in the bfin subdir.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> > I ran aclocal myself, and it blew away more than just my change,
> > but the entire block of code. Does it mean that only you are able
> > to regenerate this file properly?
> 
> do you have pkg-config installed ?  you'd need that (since it provides
> pkg.m4) in order for `aclocal` to work in the bfin subdir.

I do seem to have pkg-config installed:

    % which pkg-config
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    % pkg-config --version
    0.26

Is that the same tool we are talking about? pkg-config, I thought,
was a tool initially from the Gtk+ project. I would seem strange
that aclocal would depend on it.

Is there a special command to run for it to work? I used the exact
same aclocal version, compiled from sources and without modification,
and I still see that pkg.m4 disappears...

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:44:07 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> I do seem to have pkg-config installed:
> 
>     % which pkg-config
>     /usr/bin/pkg-config
>     % pkg-config --version
>     0.26
> 
> Is that the same tool we are talking about?

Yes.

> pkg-config, I thought, was a tool initially from the Gtk+ project. I
> would seem strange that aclocal would depend on it.

Welcome to the brave new world of autoconfiscation, and its multiple
dependencies.

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 12/21/2012 10:13 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:44:07 +0400
>> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> I do seem to have pkg-config installed:
>>
>>      % which pkg-config
>>      /usr/bin/pkg-config
>>      % pkg-config --version
>>      0.26
>>
>> Is that the same tool we are talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
>> pkg-config, I thought, was a tool initially from the Gtk+ project. I
>> would seem strange that aclocal would depend on it.

aclocal doesn't depend on it.

pkg.m4 is distributed by the pkgconfig package and installed to 
aclocal's global aclocal directory, from where running aclocal will pick 
it up, when you're using it.

i.e. pediantically speaking, not aclocal depends on it, something in gdb 
depends on pkgconfig's pkg.m4.

If you want to get rid of this dependency, you can try to append pkg.m4 
to an acinclude.m4 next to the configure.ac, which pulling in pkg.m4.

Ralf

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> i.e. pediantically speaking, not aclocal depends on it, something in
> gdb depends on pkgconfig's pkg.m4.
> 
> If you want to get rid of this dependency, you can try to append
> pkg.m4 to an acinclude.m4 next to the configure.ac, which pulling in
> pkg.m4.

OK, that makes better sense to me. What still does not make sense
is why my run of aclocal does not produce the same result, though.
Either I'm missing something, and I would have expected aclocal
to complain, or the GDB sources is missing something, and we have
a bona fide issue.

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1047 bytes --]

On Friday 21 December 2012 07:08:10 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > i.e. pediantically speaking, not aclocal depends on it, something in
> > gdb depends on pkgconfig's pkg.m4.
> > 
> > If you want to get rid of this dependency, you can try to append
> > pkg.m4 to an acinclude.m4 next to the configure.ac, which pulling in
> > pkg.m4.
> 
> OK, that makes better sense to me. What still does not make sense
> is why my run of aclocal does not produce the same result, though.
> Either I'm missing something, and I would have expected aclocal
> to complain, or the GDB sources is missing something, and we have
> a bona fide issue.

do you have pkg.m4 available ?  i don't know what distro you're using, but 
perhaps it splits it up into multiple packages so that you can have `pkg-
config` but not pkg.m4.

it's not gdb in general that wants this but code in the Blackfin subdir of the 
sim tree.  i have a device model that emulates an LCD and does so by using an 
SDL window.  i detect SDL via pkg-config at configure time.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

Just to clarify - the purpose of my messages are to raise
the question of whether there might be something missing
in our tree.

> do you have pkg.m4 available ?  i don't know what distro you're using,
> but perhaps it splits it up into multiple packages so that you can
> have `pkg- config` but not pkg.m4.

I indeed have a file called pkg.m4 available in my system.
However, I did not use the system aclocal, since the one
that comes with my system has the wrong version. If I use
the system aclocal, then I indeed get a complete aclocal.m4
being generated, with the only differences being in the header
due to the difference in version.

I think this is somewhat of an issue that the output would
depend on what is or isn't installed together with aclocal,
and that aclocal would generate an incomplete output without
indicating any kind of failure. But I understand that, in
the grand scheme of things, there are more critical issues
to work on, and that this might not be our doing...

-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On Friday 21 December 2012 13:14:43 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > do you have pkg.m4 available ?  i don't know what distro you're using,
> > but perhaps it splits it up into multiple packages so that you can
> > have `pkg- config` but not pkg.m4.
> 
> I indeed have a file called pkg.m4 available in my system.
> However, I did not use the system aclocal, since the one
> that comes with my system has the wrong version. If I use
> the system aclocal, then I indeed get a complete aclocal.m4
> being generated, with the only differences being in the header
> due to the difference in version.
> 
> I think this is somewhat of an issue that the output would
> depend on what is or isn't installed together with aclocal,
> and that aclocal would generate an incomplete output without
> indicating any kind of failure. But I understand that, in
> the grand scheme of things, there are more critical issues
> to work on, and that this might not be our doing...

this is common behavior when using aclocal.  but the sourceware tree does try 
to be a bit more "stand alone" when it comes to 3rd party dependencies.  i 
think the Blackfin sim subdir is treading somewhat new water here.

maybe the answer is to copy pkg.m4 from the latest pkg-config release into the 
top level config/ dir ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Joel Brobecker]

> this is common behavior when using aclocal.  but the sourceware tree
> does try to be a bit more "stand alone" when it comes to 3rd party
> dependencies.  i think the Blackfin sim subdir is treading somewhat
> new water here.
> 
> maybe the answer is to copy pkg.m4 from the latest pkg-config release
> into the top level config/ dir ?

This is indeed what Ralf suggested privately. I think it would be
helpful doing that - it guaranties that we can reproduce the same
result as anyone else (shielding us from variations in pkg-config,
for instance).

Thanks!
-- 
Joel

Re: Update some sim copyright headers to GPLv3-or-later

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 778 bytes --]

On Friday 21 December 2012 23:43:29 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > this is common behavior when using aclocal.  but the sourceware tree
> > does try to be a bit more "stand alone" when it comes to 3rd party
> > dependencies.  i think the Blackfin sim subdir is treading somewhat
> > new water here.
> > 
> > maybe the answer is to copy pkg.m4 from the latest pkg-config release
> > into the top level config/ dir ?
> 
> This is indeed what Ralf suggested privately. I think it would be
> helpful doing that - it guaranties that we can reproduce the same
> result as anyone else (shielding us from variations in pkg-config,
> for instance).

i think i fudged the cc, but i posted a patch to the gcc list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg01380.html
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]