IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<old>How does the GPL gets applies for Guile's module?
<old>Typically, you would have a LGPL license for library in C so that its usage does not taint the program using it.
<old>Since from what I can see most modules for Guile are under GPL, e.g. ice-9, does that mean that every program written in Guile are tainted with GPL?
<drakonis>not at all, no.
<lilyp>From what I see, only a handful of modules are GPL without the Lesser.
<lilyp>Looking closer, the grep matches more often than not appear to be typos
<ArneBab>old: if you use a GPL module, what you write needs to be GPL compatible. But those are few — like readline.
<civodul>looks like we're all set for the release!
<civodul>lloda: if you want you can push the texi patch we've been discussing
<civodul>i'll tag and release this afternoon
<lloda>civodul: thx, pushed
<ArneBab>civodul: nice!
<flatwhatson>awesome :D
<civodul>lloda: what's 764e3614b8c13de604399572a67d071621e9ca21 though? :-)
<civodul>i was referring to the documentation, i hadn't noticed that other commit
<civodul>sorry for being unclear
<mfiano>That was a short release candidate cycle. I didn't notice any problems in my testing though :)
<civodul>heh :-)
<mfiano>Thanks for everyone's work! :D
<civodul>we got feedback, including for things that won't be fixed this time (64-bit MinGW)
<civodul>lloda: sorry if i missed earlier discussion, but i'm not sure we want to diverge from R[56]RS on cond, case, etc.
<civodul>i do find it more convenient to be able to have local defines in those contexts
<civodul>but since it's a one-way change, i feel like we'd rather be sure
<civodul>maybe i'll just release from the commit that was validated and we'll chat about this issue afterwards
<lloda>oh :-\
<lloda>the doc patch was on top of the previous one, to fix the way it updated the documentation. It wasn't a standalone patch. Sorry for the confusion
<civodul>np, i wasn't paying attention to the rest of the thread
<civodul>that's ok, we'll play it safe for this one and maybe we'll just have it in 3.0.10
<lloda>if you want to revert i understand it. Imo the patch just makes sense
<civodul>i think we'll keep it for now, only after the v3.0.9 tag
<civodul>that'll leave us time to discuss it more before the next release
<mirai>what's the incantation sequence to build guile from a git checkout?
<lloda>./ && cd build-dir && src-dir/configure --prefix=install-dir && make
<lloda>&& make install ig
<mirai>was GNU Autopoint a standalone program at some point?
<old>lilyp: guile-json is under GPL 3 for example
<civodul>mirai: i think it's always been part of gettext
<mirai>this line might be confusing then
<mirai>I'll change it to GNU gettext
<mfiano>You mean remove it :)
<mirai>its right above it
<mirai>does it go into doc: category?
<mirai>(it's not the typical texi change)
<mirai>curiously it was added last "recently": 3badbb71c ("Mention package GNU Autopoint in README.", 2021-11-25)
<civodul>Guile 3.0.9 is among us!
<civodul>long overdue :-)
<mwette>congrat's to you all; guile is getting awesomer
<sneek>wb dsmith-work :)
<dsmith-work>Wednesday Greetings, Guilers
<dsmith-work>So 3.0.9 is tagged, but there are 2 commits in main after that. Should those be in 3.0.9 too?
<mfiano>Nope, see above
<dsmith-work>What's the advantage of `let ()` over `begin` ?
<dsmith-work>ACTION checks the logs
<dsmith-work>sneek: botsnack
<sneek>I've been running for 22 days
<sneek>This system has been up 13 weeks, 13 hours, 43 minutes
<civodul>dsmith-work: those two extra commits are to be (re)discussed :-)
<old>If I do `guix shell --pure -D guile' I don't get a full environment for compiling Guile from Git repo
<old>Missing tools such as autoconf, automake, etc.
<old>Anyone has a Guix specification for me?
<janneke>old: try using guile-next
<janneke>guix shell --pure -D guile-next
<civodul>old: alternatively, i use this:
<old>awesome thanks
<civodul>that provides a few more things
<old>I see
<civodul>maybe i should add it to the repo
<old>I usually have a `dev-env' script at the root of my project that does a `guix shell --pure EXTRA-PACKAGES ... -D MAIN-PACKAGE'
<old>where EXTRA are helper tools for development such as Git
<janneke>civodul: +1
<old>Btw is 3.0.9 available on Guix soon?
<lloda>is now longer/is no longer
<civodul>old: sure, i'll look into that, but you can try --with-latest i guess :-)
<civodul>i'd like to restore CI for Guile, this time using Guix infra
<sneek>tohoyn: wb :)
<tohoyn>sneek: botsnack
<apteryx>civodul: thanks for the guile release work, you rock!
<civodul>my job was mostly to press the button :-)
<apteryx>that's excellent!
<apteryx>I guess there's a bit less ceremony surrounding Guile releases as compared to Guix
<dsmith-work>civodul: It's really good you let an rc soak for a bit before the release!
<civodul>dsmith-work: i figured there was a risk of portability issues given the C-level changes, and that proved to be right!
<mfiano>civodul: Are you the project lead? I haven't been around here in a couple years until recently. Just wondering what role wingo et al have now.
<civodul>mfiano: on paper wingo & i are co-maintainers; in practice wingo has been the lead developer for many years and i've been largely MIA
<mfiano>Ah, well thank you for pressing the button. Those relentless buttons, always showing up wanting to be pushed.
<lilyp>old: guile-json is not a part of guile
<old>Yes I know. I was refering to ice-9 as an example
<old>The main question was, does using a module under GPL will taint the program/module using it
<old>I guess that the answer is yes
<sneek>dsmith-work: wb
<dsmith-work>sneek: botsnack for you!
<lilyp>old: I wouldn't refer to it as "tainting" due to the negative connotations associated with that word, but yes, you would have to make derivative work available under terms of the GPL if you are publishing them
<lilyp>In Guile proper, that only affects the Elisp compiler, which makes sense as Elisp itself is heavily bound to Emacs, which is itself GPL.
<mirai>or other compatible licenses (such as AGPL)
<old>I agree that tainting is probably not the best choice of phrasing, but english is not my native
<old>my native tongue
<old>I was using the word taint to describe the virulence of GPL. But this is also a negative connotation on its own
<old>I would you describe it then if you would avoid the negative connotation? To be clear I have nothing against GPL, all of my stuffs are under either that or LGPL
<old>s/I would you/How would you
<mirai>old: I remember GNU had a page on this
<mirai>let me see if I can find it