Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2020-04
10 messages · 5 people ·
Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription
Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.
Hello.
I have done a fork of fpc fixes_3_2 and made some modification of original code.
May I distribute the fpc binary of that patched version with the units files, ready to use out-of-the-box?
Must I add the source of the change done?
What I am not allowed to do?
Thanks.
Fre;D
Yes.
Must I add the source of the change done?
If it is in the compiler, yes. I am not so clear on the RTL/Packages.
What I am not allowed to do?
Change the copyright and put your name on it.
I'm surprised you want to distribute your own version of the compiler.
Maybe you could simply share the changes with the FPC team, see if they can be included in the main compiler/rtl.
Michael.
Hello. I have done a fork of fpc fixes_3_2 and made some modification of original code.…
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, 05:09 fredvs via fpc-pascal, <
In my opinion yes, but note I only represent my own opinion here. On a practical side, make sure that your users know they are downloading a custom patched version not supported by the fpc team.
Must I add the source of the change done?
As a minimum clearly display a download link to the modified source in the download. Could be a separate text file in the download, perhaps listing the modifications and link to the source.
I What I am not allowed to do?
Anything not permitted by fpc's licences :)
Yes. If it is in the compiler, yes. I am not so clear on the RTL/Packages. Change the…
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb am Fr., 10. Apr. 2020, 07:44:
For everything that is licensed as "modified LGPL" that is necessary as well (that definitely includes RTL and FCL; the license of the import units is more often than not also "modified LGPL")
I have the feeling that I know what it is...
Regards,
Sven
Yes. If it is in the compiler, yes. I am not so clear on the RTL/Packages. Change the…
I'm surprised you want to distribute your own version of the compiler.
Huh, https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=32367
No answer, no no good will, hate, dont want to understand, ... ---> conclusion:
https://github.com/fredvs/freepascal
Fre;D
Maybe a ping to reopen the discussion here could solve your problem as well?
I agree with Florian's comment:
"I think the proposal not to mess with the filename if it is preceeded by : sounds reasonable to me."
So I think we can simply allow the version number to be specified. It's a simple enough change, doesn't harm existing code.
We don't need to use this mechanism ourselves (I've never needed it), but I don't see why we should forbid the user to do so, specially since it doesn't harm existing gcc allows it.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3840218/how-to-specify-the-library-version-to-use-at-link-time
clearly the need exists.
To fork a compiler over such a minor issue seems a bit overkill to me.
Michael.
El 10/4/20 a les 14:30, Michael Van Canneyt ha escrit:
We don't need to use this mechanism ourselves (I've never needed it),
Probably because you already have the needed dev package installed or created the symlink yourself.
No other linux binary packaged by any distribution needs the dev packages to work, nor the bare .so symlink.
Bye
Maybe a ping to reopen the discussion here could solve your problem as well? I agree with…
El 10/4/20 a les 14:30, Michael Van Canneyt ha escrit: Probably because you already have…
Luca Olivetti schrieb am Fr., 10. Apr. 2020, 16:11:
But you need it to compile and link it (especially in C/C++). A FPC binary doesn't need the symlink either.
Regards,
Sven
But you need it to compile and link it (especially in C/C++).
Yes, for C/C++ sometimes developers needs the .a static libraries, the new library.h header, .la files, etc.
And by convenience some libraries give a "dev" packages with all that, included the "nude" symlink that point to the develop library.
But this is not needed by fpc, fpc needs the .so dynamic library for linking, no more.
Fred