incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo?
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:36:44 GMT
Apparently the getopt.h has been cleaned up in later OpenBSD, FreeBSD releases.  The Todd Miller
2002 getopt_long.c version is the same, so that looks like a clear choice.


 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni [] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 14:09
Subject: RE: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo?

 On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:43:09 -0700, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
 <> wrote:
> Most stock implementations on Windows seem to have the original BSD 
> license.
 Including "MSVC" in the search produces more specific results.
 Mesa uses OpenBSD's version which is a 2 clause BSD license.

 Readdir_r is here:

> The getopt.h license has the original BSD license, so don't use that.
> Use one that either has no license or is derived some other way.
 The BSDs have removed the "advertisement clause" but I have to say
 I never found it problematic, just another political stand from the
 FSF. It shouldn't be an issue for Apache and it"s LGPL/MPL compatible
 so it shouldn't be an issue for LO either.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro F. Giffuni
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:23
> To:;
> Cc: 'Michael Stahl'
> Subject: RE: How to do with glibc-2.1.3 in AOOo?
> Ahem ...
> Guys;
> --- On Wed, 9/14/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <> 
> wrote:
> ...
>> If you list the functions you have in
>> mind, and the names of the headers normally used to
>> introduce their signatures, I will double-check the VC++
>> 2008 and VC++ 2010 libraries to see what the status
>> is.
> We are far from being the only unixy port to Windows:
> A quick google for "getopt_long Windows" returns:
> I think it's a matter of someone with a Windows compiler
> to just go over the code and build a small compatibility
> library.
> Can we first merge mingwport35 CWS, though? I suspect that
> would touch some of those files and I don't want
> to introduce conflicts to the Oracle updates just yet.
> Pedro.

View raw message