On 2/4/2010 5:58 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 4 Feb 2010, at 21:03, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>> ]] Nick Kew
>>
>> | I don't know if it comes under any of the FSF's exceptions for the
>> | core toolchain (as in, compiling with gcc and linking glibc doesn't
>> | bring you under GPL).
>>
>> It's a shell script. It's hardly linked into expat or apr-util and
>> there's no way it can make the generated binaries fall under the GPL.
>
> Yes, I know it's a shell script.
>
> The point is, we *are* distributing it!
>From what I can see; needlessly so. It's configuration is out-of-sorts
with the modern autoconf and libtool packages, and since this is for apr,
we should be able to scope out libtool entirely (apr provides that magic).
Which leaves a bunch of autoconf work to be done to bring it up to modern
standards, but would eliminate this artifact in the very next releases.
Working on it, in the meantime I still don't believe there is cause to
actually panic :)
|