Re: [ALTERNATE PATCH] Add a simple option parser.

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 5, 2007, 16:20 UTC
Message-ID: <86wsu1v8ha.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
In-Reply-To: <598D5675D34BE349929AF5EDE9B03E2701624FF2@az33exm24.fsl.freescale.net>

"Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1" <Emilian.Medve@freescale.com> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Hi Pierre,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pierre Habouzit [mailto:madcoder@debian.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:57 AM
>> To: Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1
>> Cc: Mike Hommey; Kristian Høgsberg; git@vger.kernel.org; 
>> Junio C Hamano
>> Subject: Re: [ALTERNATE PATCH] Add a simple option parser.
>> 
>> On ven, oct 05, 2007 at 03:45:36 +0000, Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1 wrote:
>> > You probably already considered and rejected the GNU argp parser. I
>> > used it before and I'd like to know reasons I should stay away from
>> > it.
>> 
>>   Because it's GNU and that it's a heavy dependency to begin with.
>
> So it's more of a political decision then a technical one?

Well, if it is GNU then it is likely to mean GPLv3 (or GPLv3+) at some point of time, though it should certainly be possible for now to still secure a v2-licensed version (either GPL or LGPL).

GNU also means a different coding and indentation style.

Personally, I couldn't care less about both points (I prefer the GNU coding style anyway), but that's for the maintainer to decide, and one also has to take into account the effect on developer motivation.

And the typical git developer AFAICT prefers to consider themselves as unaligned with GNU and the FSF as much as possible.

-- 
David Kastrup