Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:51:40 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: 2.04 CVS Build plan
In-Reply-To:	<200211252116.gAPLGXU02124@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021126074744.23833A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > How about if we put them in libglibc.a (a new library), make sure 
> > people recognize linking to it has different license terms (not 
> > automatically linked), but it would provide c99 support?
> > 
> > Just an idea, but a big build change...
> 
> I don't think that would be appropriate for djgpp.

I agree with DJ.  Having many useful functions in a separate LGPL'ed 
library will most probably create a mess whereby user programs use those 
functions and then fall under the GNU license without any reasonable 
alternative for the user to avoid that.

Assuming the work on math functions is done (by K.B. Williams), and 
putting the wide character support aside for a while, could someone 
please prepare a list of what else is missing?  Perhaps that list is not 
too long, in which case we could have a resonably short plan to write 
those functions/macros.

- Raw text -