incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components
Date Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:52:28 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Donald Whytock <> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> There is no intent to hoard.  From talking to developers on this
>> project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
>> was done previously.  But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it
>> will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner.  Simply
>> having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their
>> release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability
>> reasons.  Release schedules don't always sync up.
> Much more of a Java developer than a C++ developer, so I don't know
> how C++ linking is managed.
> In Java you give a list of .jar files for the loader to use, in order
> of preference; hence you can "patch" a class in a 3rd party library by
> supplying your own version of that class in a library that's examined
> before the 3rd party library.
> Does C++ have something similar?  Such that you can supply both the
> original untouched 3rd party binary library and your own binary
> library that only contains the modified code?

You can do something similar, but it is a build-time pattern, not a
runtime one.   So you can store the original source code of the 3rd
party module, as well as a patch, and then apply that source patch at
build time.


> Don

View raw message