22 Jun
2009
22 Jun
'09
10:58 a.m.
On Mon, 22.06.09 08:52, Adam Sampson (ats(a)offog.org) wrote:
This is bogus. There is no dependency on rtkit here. if during runtime
the rtkit service is found it is used. If it is not found it isn't
used. end of story.
There is not compile time dependency on rtkit and no runtime
dependency either.
If I had introduced my own little library everyone would have to link
to it. However this way they just have to depend on dbus, which is
something many applications link to any way. So this way there is many
cae no dependency added at all. And the build is certainly easier.
Also, the client reference implementation is tiny. it just wraps two
method calls. Trivial stuff.
Then file a bug.
The .c/.h files are pretty explicit. Ever single file one has the
GPLv2+ blurb in it.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
Lennart Poettering <mzynq(a)0pointer.de> writes:
Really, I see not much value in supporting more than one kernel. That
just means reinventing the wheel over and over. If others care, fine
for them.
I am Linux developer. My priority is Linux.
That's nice, but most of us developers don't have the luxury of being
able to forget about portability. I've spent quite a bit of effort
packaging software for other free operating systems, and there's already
a widespread (and largely justified) stereotype that Linux developers
don't write portable code. Please don't contribute to the problem. I don't
think it is worth creating a tiny mini library that I'd need
to maintain and everyone depend on for just one (or two) little
function call. Especially since this would be an extra dep to a lot of
software.
But instead you're proposing adding two dependencies (the D-Bus client
library and the RealtimeKit service), and having everybody who wants to
use it copy a large chunk of code into their project. I don't see how
that's a simpler option than providing a library interface; it's
certainly not simpler to write a configure test for. How did you
come to the conclusion that dbus was AFL/GPL2-only? Can you
point me to where this is claimed?
It's stated clearly in the COPYING file for D-Bus: "D-Bus is licensed to
you under your choice of the Academic Free License version 2.1, or the
GNU General Public License version 2." If that isn't their intent, it
needs fixing.