Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:44:30 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Message-ID: <20130125204430.GX2522@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org> 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> <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--PeEtTtIyPIoxp38l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > 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 star= t disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've bee= n 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 ha= ve 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 p= roject > >>> policy. > >> The goal is to try not to ship GPL'd code in 10. The goal is not to sh= ip 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 sy= stems 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 thre= ad. >=20 > I don't care much about gcc in current. It doesn't seem like the right ti= me > to kill it but it is a dead end and we should be using the pre pkg'ed=20 > version > instead (I know, easier said than done, but the Debian guys did it). >=20 > Either way, there is no hurry but it is a desirable goal. >=20 > > 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 ? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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++. You were finger-pointed due to the rule 'blame the last committer =66rom the VCS log'. Even less so, you were asked about it because you probably knew most about possible cause. I am not worried about the bug itself, which needs a proper identification and fixing. I am indeed wery disappointed regarding the attitude of the person who introduced the bug. Reverting the split may be the best action in my opinion. Both in head and stable. --PeEtTtIyPIoxp38l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRAu6uAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1BwdwP/1bPxo3OZh9O53cBY8yA4uFq OY2xhkaYHZUhpMDRbEN87WJA2JgZgVJtSoibIVib2AgMmMLdI3b5ZXYrl1NtQD9T ig7XBnr4ZzF+ItlgpRN5D9qc17SEZa+UTiYCUKNdrsGgBgReen53jFr0cJf5ACpw dB13MkFOS34jPRGumZh+WcxxGouifE1W6xPIEwLrLc40Q30kJC7YH/44FY7pYbGc WH04Uj4mzkLpXfbW2xO/iDIcj058IRw/PVl5IZOdW0+SCT11XUcx5tf9nNDciwL1 l2tnwNQ+EX8I9KBKSGlCt7pQTUNxg1w1ykW8IqrU3/qcfzkY1J38eLXh5IzXAA1f r38Uhsqkr+Svb0DyPDC1oYNiWLS99sRnWMBeX6EWft6kd03iZYmOitqPADtZfxih TnrU3e4cNabuQVW3JoKWH+eUysOWF95Y6WaGswNdniYcLqzaSrUJwZ/DpjimGzv5 0WMPiScHZtoy4r99xj25ZGwnNaJT3Rm1NXslORQmckrzuQSRjzhYdyF4F9Z8CrRp kuJrL+uTOSTJNH+ZvOsA2IdfPRbV9Hjiapxzagd0/oFoPefINZOYKmho4nb1BNly 4AklpzQWQYxaierKGdc7MqWR8IAgWtqJadvyr/G5OxA6t592zBnx5fdxlLU968Ex PSA23nZ3l6lDOLmU2/IR =uq+e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PeEtTtIyPIoxp38l--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130125204430.GX2522>