Re: [B2-devel] Thoughts on SheepShaver and Basilisk II

[Alexander v. G. <kal...@un...>]

On 15.06.2012 20:36, Frank Trampe wrote:
> So as to avoid duplicative effort, can you share what areas you plan to 
> improve? If you do start working on
> re-implementing the memory management layer, I would be willing to help.

Right now I'm starting with an overhaul of the build system and cleanup

  * fix automake errors
  * reduce C warnings
  * remove crusty unused sources
  * simplify code layout
  * apply performance patches already floating around on the internet

You can see what's been done so far here:
   https://github.com/kallisti5/sheepshear/commits/master

One mundane change upstream may want is:
https://github.com/kallisti5/sheepshear/commit/3f409600d7aba91f1e6bb230b29165394525c70c

I reworked some of the BIOS patching functions to be a little more efficient 
and less error prone.
(using pointers for return data vs relying on 0 vs >0 for error detection)

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Alexander von Gluck 
> <kal...@un... [4]> wrote:
>
>> On 15.06.2012 17:34, Lew Irwin/Studio Briefing wrote:
>> > For us non-techies who are using SheepShaver with the old "fork," what
>> > does this mean?
>>
>> Nothing really.  The GNU license means a fork can take place as long as 
>> some
>> guidelines
>> are followed:
>>
>>  * Copyrights can't be changed (eg, I can't go back and erase the names 
>> of
>> all the people
>>    who made SheepShaver possible)
>>  * Trademark laws must be followed. (thus SheepShear vs SheepShaver)
>
> And the resulting derivative products are forever locked into the G.P.L.. 
> There are some down-sides to this, but it
> makes merging back changes from those derivative products much simpler.

Indeed you are correct, sorry for missing that important bit :)

  -- Alex