On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:48:15AM -0400, Joern Rennecke wrote: > I'm currently working on an update of the patch for PR42843, and I wonder > what best to do about the symbol plugin_is_GPL_compatible. > > extern int plugin_is_GPL_compatible;
> > However, it would mean that plugin_is_GPL_compatible would have to be declared > as type int - we currently say in the documentation that the type doesn't > matter. So we'd have to change the documentation to reflect this, then. > Also, the type we suggest in the documentation is int, but some people > might have choosen a different type to be on the safe side not to use GFDL > code (pasted from the manual) together with GPL code, or to safe space - > should we worry about the backwards compatibility issue there? I strongly believe your proposal is good, and we should *not* worry about backwards compatibility: * plugins are supposed to be free software, preferably GPLv3, so people can patch & recompile them, especially since your requirement is easy! * plugins are not supposed to even be source compatible from one version (e.g. 4.5) of GCC to the next (e.g. 4.6). * some plugins might be source (but not binary) compatible from a minor version (e.g. 4.5.0) to the next (e.g. 4.5.1). * very few plugins exist in practice today, and some of them already declared plugin_is_GPL_compatible as an int. We could even change the name to GCC_plugin_is_GPL_compatible if you want. Whatever we do, we should document that. I hope your patch will be approved. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
