Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updated ASDF usage to remove warnings #24

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vsedach
Copy link

@vsedach vsedach commented Aug 17, 2019

SYSTEM-DEFINITION-PATHNAME is deprecated, replace with
SYSTEM-SOURCE-DIRECTORY

Follow ASDF3 best practices for system definition:
https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md


A couple of other things since I did not see your contact information in the repository and this is my only way of contacting you:

  1. Johan Andersson has what seems to be a legitimate bugfix at nja@75a6090 Not sure why he did not make a pull request for that.

  2. Can you change the license to LGPL version 3 or later? I wrote up a summary of why LLGPL is not necessary here: https://cliki.net/LLGPL I'll add the proper license files, copyright notices, SPDX metadata, etc. if you agree.

vsedach and others added 3 commits August 17, 2019 13:01
SYSTEM-DEFINITION-PATHNAME is deprecated, replace with
SYSTEM-SOURCE-DIRECTORY

Follow ASDF3 best practices for system definition:
https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/master/doc/best_practices.md
@DalekBaldwin
Copy link
Owner

Thanks. I'm just now getting some time to work on projects outside of my job again. I updated the CI script to accommodate the system name change.

The only part of the LGPL that always seemed questionable for a macro-heavy Lisp library is the limitation to incorporating "small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length)". If it is only used in a clearly separated test package, I expect the package under test would be unaffected anyway. But it still seems to be a better fit than any other standard license, and the LLGPL's language about function redefinition raises trickier questions about future ideas I had in mind, so I would welcome the change. You can add it to the existing PR if you like.

@vsedach
Copy link
Author

vsedach commented Sep 6, 2019

Ok, I changed the license and added the necessary license files and file copyright notices.

Regarding "small macros, inline functions and templates" (in LGPLv3 this is in section 3), that is not a limitation, but the threshold at which the program would have to provide notice that is using the library under the LGPL.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants