Re: dropping sigc++

Please don't top post!

James Harr wrote:
> How do the need for c++, sigc++, and autoconf relate at all?

You need a C++ compiler to build libsigc++ and those parts of Y which 
use it.  Autoconf shouldn't need C++, but Y's configure script will 
check for a C++ compiler.

> And how would removing autoconf, and sigc++ be doing something useful with 
> this project?

Judging from his previous posts, when he says "useful" I think he means 
it's useful for some other project he's working on, and not necessarily 
for anyone else.

Unless/until I'm corrected on this I propose we ignore him.

While we're on the subject, and I don't mean to imply that I think this 
is going on, I have a word of warning to anyone who wants to incorporate 
Y code into another project:

Y is GPL code.  It would infringe the contributor's copyright if you 
were to include it in a non-GPLed product*.  Please do not do this.  I 
take the same view of copyright infringement as the netfilter/iptables 
team, and I personally know quite a lot of attorneys in various countries.

Phil

* You can of course negotiate other licensing terms with the contributors.