Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:59:41 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Message-ID: <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <E0EA1F1F-99BB-47F5-94A3-1C197F680BD9@bsdimp.com> References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <E0EA1F1F-99BB-47F5-94A3-1C197F680BD9@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--hsoAP4Wa+/L9NF1J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >=20 > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > >> Hi All, > >>=20 > >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start = disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been = running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that do= n't build with clang are now explicitly depending on gcc. Does anyone have= strong opinions on when would be a good time for head on x86 and x86-64 to= default to not building gcc? > >=20 > > To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x. > > Instead, there are still plans to ship working 10.x. > >=20 > > Please do not consider the personal opinion as the statement of the pro= ject > > policy. >=20 > The goal is to try not to ship GPL'd code in 10. The goal is not to ship = 10 without GPL'd code if that results in a broken system. The goal also as = articulated at different forum, was for Tier 1 systems. Tier 2 and 3 syste= ms may use GPL code as a fallback if the non-gpl'd code doesn't work on tho= se platforms. >=20 > That is to say, it is a goal, not an absolute requirement. All you said is reasonable and quite coincides with what I thought. Unfortunately, it has very tangential relations to what is proposed to do and to the political agenda declared in the message started the thread. I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g., are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ? --hsoAP4Wa+/L9NF1J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRAuQsAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1ByWMP/35NGauTQDjybB/wTLL0t1HK 20B1Ioi1/6sQiemRtrTN0bL5egKN1zOzKlfq43vMxjIwwM2fTGfo9XZ8N+rZo4VL tNPIcOfZH0qXnGLbDAI19IqNsd5VRvHwJc6i0+ipnRCGeFvUtXeQxXlp51fzlSTJ B1OJjoe/vokz6O6BgY33lW0bJbPGfqoIgqUdAmJkouBLQeE2MeVEKMr9ALCSQdS0 GtcQ+UcfQAXBsqHQqZ9qwKIyDjQq2diYIB7GSxpx0J7e/6Ku21FLdBFY4yfhEsCt vm/mX++VqL5cJqEshKkMNWb0J7CeEvmmt7XAxuCfmsMzpaod6dgobr3fl/AR29Jo fpeoV1mIx8qeIQcK2OsvZgKiE643ukRH5WahXJJZgAu3z9n/8lf4XstmBSmSTeCD hvrxKGIRwvWn3n5O0aecibzcPKBPmQaHqIWqBXS19G0vIwDJ1GwkgalafV1LxaiV HcvHYbAwtQ1OUNr6YNekuPE6L3wzFb41MknSIR3SafpPXqc4nLr4EBDdPe+9aKS8 t5retCsm5iaBvpxim9h3ryt4sbEK2l5VsHzuUOsIZTYfBgF0/vDT2BeAo9kia5wx +DQHDlabmB5aD6KYTQIZ871N5nkU1GgRnp5YFLsZoxx3e7rhnb4oqlwR6iMykHLY 5xUVH9z6dTwahF3KEU1j =7+xL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hsoAP4Wa+/L9NF1J--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130125195941.GW2522>