[PATCH] renameat2: port to RHEL 7 + NFS

* lib/renameat2.c (renameat2) [SYS_renameat2]: Port to RHEL 7 + NFS. Problem reported by Ted Zlatanov in: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-08/msg00082.html --- ChangeLog | 7 +++ lib/renameat2.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

Re: License of c99 and std-gnu11 modules

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 08/03/2017 11:35 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: >> >> 'std-gnu11' (and 'c99' with it) could IMO really be 'LGPLv2+' or >> 'unlimited' - like inline, extern-inline, warnings, extensions. >> >> 'd-ino', 'host-os', 'longlong'

Re: License of c99 and std-gnu11 modules

On 08/03/2017 11:35 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: 'std-gnu11' (and 'c99' with it) could IMO really be 'LGPLv2+' or 'unlimited' - like inline, extern-inline, warnings, extensions. 'd-ino', 'host-os', 'longlong' could IMO be switched to 'LGPL', since they are surely useful in libraries. Opinions?

Re: License of c99 and std-gnu11 modules

Hi Reuben, all, Reuben Thomas wrote: > Would it be possible to relax the licenses on these modules so they can be > used with the --lgpl option to gnulib-tool? "GPLed build tool" would seem > appropriate. Per https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Copyright.html, when a modules has

License of c99 and std-gnu11 modules

Would it be possible to relax the licenses on these modules so they can be used with the --lgpl option to gnulib-tool? "GPLed build tool" would seem appropriate. -- https://rrt.sc3d.org