> Anyway, I will try to make some time to set up a new repo and move the
> code over.
Would this all be in one repo, or would you be breaking it down into
multiple repos based on the specific subject matter (as I had been
planning to do)? Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
I believe a single repo would probably be most practical both for users and maintainers.
a single repo probably makes the most sense, though it would mean that
client programmers would by adding the whole as a sub-module even if
they only need, say, the Integer library.
We need to distinguish between the repository and the resulting binary.
A Modula-2 compiler will generate one object file per module, regardless of whether the modules are in one repo or distributed over several repos. It then comes down to the linker and build system to link the object files together into a binary. With Modula-2 systems, object files of modules that are never imported should not be linked into the binary. I am pretty sure that GM2 works this way, too.
Feel free to re-import the modified code from here:
https://github.com/Schol-R-LEA/Modula-2-Portable-Bit-Manipulation/tree/main
I will take a look. Thanks.
There may be some subtle matters regarding the license (GPL3 vs. LGPL3),
but I won't open that can of worms if you don't. Since my code is based
on yours, I will follow your lead on this point.
I believe the fairest license for libraries is the LGPL, not the GPL.
The rationale to me is this: My license choice for my code, user's license choice for their code.
I had licensed this code under the LGPL2.1. I will need to take a look at the LGPL3 to see what has changed.
Similarly, if you are planning to have a single large repo, you might
want to roll my work on UNICODE character support into the library,
though that may present a more significant licensing conflict given that
it was based in part on Chris Lilley's code (which is under GPL3 - the
whole reason I was using GPL3 was to avoid conflicts with that).
It seems to me that something as important as Unicode support should not be so restrictive. Since it will likely be the only Unicode library for classic Modula-2, it would be better if it could be licensed under an LGPL license. Otherwise, there will likely be folks who can't use it. So we need to ask ourselves what our priority is: Is our primary goal to spread the GPL, or is it to provide Unicode for PIM and ISO Modula-2?
Speaking of which, if Chris Lilley is on this mailing list now, I would
be interesting in getting his input about the project.
If we can get in contact, perhaps he will grant permission to relicense those parts you have used under the LGPL. Otherwise, I can rewrite the two conversions. I would have needed to do that eventually for our M2R10 compiler anyway, even though I had planned to do this after the bootstrap in R10, but its not such a big deal to write it in the common subset of PIM and ISO using the portability library and then transcribe it to R10 later.
regards
benjamin