Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
  gdb AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
  binutils AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
  cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
  dj AT delorie DOT com
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian AT zembu DOT com>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, gdb AT sources DOT redhat DOT com, binutils AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
        cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: Another RFC: regex in libiberty
References: <200106080127 DOT VAA01308 AT greed DOT delorie DOT com>
	<si1yovn4f7 DOT fsf AT daffy DOT airs DOT com>
	<200106080134 DOT VAA06362 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: 07 Jun 2001 18:43:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <200106080134.VAA06362@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <siwv6nlpap.fsf@daffy.airs.com>
Lines: 29
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> writes:

> > gdb already ships with gnu-regex.c.  Why not just move that to
> > libiberty?
> 
> Because gdb, tcl, expect, cygwin, and gcc each have a copy of regex,
> and they're all different.  Which to choose?

The ones in gdb and gcc are basically the same.  TCL and Expect are
not GNU projects, and will continue to have their own regex code.
Cygwin has different licensing constraints; cygwin already has its own
copy of getopt, for instance.

> > I can't see any reason for a BSD-licensed regex in libiberty.
> > libiberty already GPL code.
> 
> Any regex added to libiberty becomes part of newlib and cygwin as
> well, and those projects are sensitive to GPL vs non-GPL licensing
> issues.

I see no reason to confuse the regex in libiberty with the regex in
newlib and cygwin, any more than there is to confuse the getopt in
libiberty.  regex in libiberty should satisfy the needs of GNU tools,
and as such I think it is appropriate to use the GNU regex.  Of
course, if the GNU regex is inferior, then it might make sense to
choose something else.  But I don't think we should avoid using GNU
code for GNU tools because of licensing issues for non-GNU tools.

Ian

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple