The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: linux.debian.devel.mentors
From: Gergely Nagy <alger...@madhouse-project.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 09:00:02 +0200
Local: Sat, Jul 21 2012 3:00 am
Subject: Re: packaging C interpreter
Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> writes:
the Artistic License, used by, for example, Perl. I do not think that
> 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 will be a problem. > 2. It build does not use autotools but make with small edits. I guess I
Please don't do that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not using
> could try putting it under autotools 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,
> 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 still believe that for many students C is still a first language and
And this is another issue: why would a C interpreter help in any way? We
> therefore having an interpreter to study would greatly help them up their > learning curve already have battle-proven C compilers, which students will be exposed to anyway, since if they work under unix, chances are, they'll use gcc or clang anyway. I do not think a C interpreter adds any value, I'm afraid. Granted, it's
-- -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||