[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL?
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL? |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:52:41 -0700 |
From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
Date: 05 Jun 2002 16:45:47 +0100
- a consistent approach to factoring non-core functionality out of
core libguile
- a consistent approach to linking in such optional functionality and
handling any runtime licence implications that result
- a consistent approach to coping with the non-existence of optical
functionality
all these are part of build methodology. see below for 1.4.x ROADMAP
(under $w/build/dist-files locally) -- critique welcome.
- consistent usage of `features' and/or `cond-expand' to permit
programs to discover what optional functionality is present.
how do these interact w/ each other? are there weird corner cases?
thi
_________________________________________________________
This file explains the general direction of Guile.
1.4.x Goals
- No breakage for current usage.
- Build methodology evolved into architecture/implementation.
- Build methodology documented and exported.
- Scheme compilation to native code supported by build methodology.
By the end of 1.4.x, we want to be able to use guile maximally
from a "scheme world" point of view, reaching out from that
centrality to the hardware and everything in between, and do so
w/o forgetting how we did things before.
The key task here is to understand what the hell we're doing.
Then we put a name on it, put in place general machinery to
handle that case and any historic cases, and lastly re-work
these methodologies into scripts w/ parameters specific to Guile
and documentation explaining how to specialize the scripts.
Scripts then go under "guile-tools".
Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL?, Neil Jerram, 2002/06/05
Re: What if Guile changed its license to be LGPL?, Dale P. Smith, 2002/06/05