Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:36:15 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Message-ID: <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <E0EA1F1F-99BB-47F5-94A3-1C197F680BD9@bsdimp.com> <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: >> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> 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 don'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? >>> 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. >>> >>> Please do not consider the personal opinion as the statement of the project >>> policy. >> 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 systems may use GPL code as a fallback if the non-gpl'd code doesn't work on those platforms. >> >> 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 don't care much about gcc in current. It doesn't seem like the right time to kill it but it is a dead end and we should be using the pre pkg'ed version instead (I know, easier said than done, but the Debian guys did it). Either way, there is no hurry but it is a desirable goal. > 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 ? The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying. I would prefer if the hack to attempt using libstdc++ as a filter library were reverted altogether in 9.x. I had a lots of stress with that issue as some people pointed at my libstdc++ updates as possible root cause. I felt some natural relief when the real cause was found but I certainly wonder why the change was made in 9.x though since it's clear that codebase will not be migrated to libc++. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5102ECBF.4060500>