On 21/07/2012 08:34, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Rustom Mody <[email protected]> writes: > >> I use and am interested in packaging the C interpreter >> http://www.linuxbox.com/tiki/node/149 > >> 1. Its not under GPL but a 'creative licence' > >>From the homepage, and the source, this 'creative license' appears to be > the Artistic License, used by, for example, Perl. I do not think that > will be a problem. > >> 2. It build does not use autotools but make with small edits. I guess I >> could try putting it under autotools > > Please don't do that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not using > autotools. If minor edits is all the upstream build system needs, doing > that is far less invasive than replacing the whole build system. > > Especially as there is no upstream to send the autotoolsification to, > there is absolutely no need to do such an invasive change. > >> 3. Its an old project > > Now this is a bigger isse: with no upstream, possible bugs are all yours > to fix. Are you willing and capable of acting as if you were the > upstream author?
I think this issue is alleviated by the fact that someone seems to have worked on this interpreter during the last year. Further information can be found here: http://eic-howto.wikispaces.com/ > I do not think a C interpreter adds any value, I think a C interpreter can be useful if it can be embedded and integrated into applications, as it allows for C scripting and quick prototyping of functions, which can be both positive. What are the benefits of EIC with respect to Tiny CC (tcc package) and CINT (root-system package) that others have suggested? Bests, Giulio. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
