[LinuxBIOS] romcc manpage.

[Eric W. Biederman]

Uwe Hermann <uwe at hermann-uwe.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 03:19:22PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Yes. GPL v2, like the rest of LinuxBIOS.
>
> OK, here's an updated version. When was romcc started? I used
> "Copyright 2003-2006 Eric W. Biederman", taking the numbers from the
> svn logs... Is that correct?

Sounds roughly right.  Basically LinuxBIOS v2 and romcc are the same
age.

> Not all of LinuxBIOS is currently marked as "GPL v2", though. There are
> many files which say "GPL v2 or later" (see previous license thread)...

Sure, but as a group the sum total winds up being GPL v2.

> What are people here thinking about GPL versions? Do you explicitly want
> LinuxBIOS to be GPL v2? If so, why? I personally usually use "GPL v2 or
> later", which will prevent hassle when GPL v3 will be here (and judging
> from what I've read about GPL v3, that'll be fine with me, too).

In part we are derived from the Linux kernel, and that is v2 only.
And big chunks of LinuxBIOS are v2 only for the same reason.

The License file proved is v2 of the License and not every contributor
has been willing for v2 or later.

>> > I guess it is considered "stable" for what it does. Want to take it
>> > over? ;-)
>
> Um, no thanks :) That's way too complex for me to understand anyways...
>
>
>> Odd.  I know a few of tests are expected to fail that way, but I thought
>> I had them marked.  I would have to look into it in more detail to
>> give a better answer.
>
> I'm using gcc 4.1.2 if that matters.

Not unless romcc got miscompiled.

> I was thinking about maybe making romcc more quiet, currently it's
> spitting out tons of compile warnings such as:
>
> romcc.c:17732: warning: 'print_live_variables' defined but not used

That might help.  Defined but not used is fairly benign as warnings go,
so it isn't where I would start :)

Eric