From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 20:36:27 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA4616C for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:36:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pfg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nm38-vm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm38-vm7.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.239.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE887F0 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:36:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [98.139.215.142] by nm38.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2013 20:36:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.213.12] by tm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2013 20:36:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp112.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2013 20:36:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 424270.17547.bm@smtp112.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: tTV46_wVM1m9q7twmNGFtG59VoeJr9kW_tGmqCcls6tN4yM klATgRV9RxN5MjjfqhCq1h4ffRKpf_EWZg2yI9gj2cBH8HphRFV_nVpPhgvK k2j1aUrzkDy2muSc8ZFpdCMungEdPhn2KQfcSASEaaRntOzezSj2jF1YJNpG x5dBD1k6RaEroWqm5xGK9zRUKtZEZARWfhexSVvvBUhac9.2CakrElNTsvhI AsWU6bsvtys6ZeYM1HRsbDfCdPSTHgyoZdAm0d5MmuPzOCA_EORqaYoPW4rZ YkhdYwZ9gBdIHg8ueH0LBj.zdFMdT27DXlXwhTZ0F.eJ9rJAGLTSFXT73Kho fjZj_lD6rWUwtclzgaLiVMmJv2R1VmYY1XN9NfpUFuICPClN0J7sXt1iXhLd 2Mksl2i79Y4iaccL934N6XmiyHgdKm287Psv9TXLFxDTO_UfDCe3gvJO.ERN MHFQKsNuuHVw- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xcjD0guswBAZaPPIbxpWwLcp9Unf Received: from [192.168.10.102] (pfg@200.118.157.7 with plain) by smtp112.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2013 12:36:17 -0800 PST Message-ID: <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:36:15 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:36:27 -0000 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.