On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 17:32, Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Note that readline is GPL-3.0, not LGPL-3.0, which means linking with it > directly impacts the licensing of the entire application. > > And while I cannot speak for others, (L)GPL-3.0 are problematic and should be > avoided if possible, and be optional otherwise. Which is exactly what Ross > did when he changed the default from readline to editline in the python3 > recipe. Going back on that is definitely the wrong thing to do. As much as I think that what GPLv3 aims to do is just, and its terms serve the interest of the end users and general public (protecting their essential freedoms from tyranny of the software vendors), I also have to agree with the above. When there is a choice given to us by upstream, we should go with non-gpl3 options if they don't result in big loss of functionality. > > time and nobody ever devotes any real effort to develop an alternative. > > > > I guess when the commit was made, the underlying API incompatibility was > > NOT made clear. > > If the test fails when python3 is configured to use editline, then I would > say that it is the test that is wrong and should be corrected. Also this is correct. Python's test suite should pass regardless of how it was configured. I'd suggest doing these things: - clearly marking the reason for skipping the test as being readline-specific and failing with editline - filing an upstream bug specifically about this, and including the link to it into the patch. It's pretty much expected nowadays that any new Inappropriate patch should come with such a bug link. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#203326): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/203326 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/107879487/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
