Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:31:46 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Message-ID: <01F1C63C-13D7-4C9D-AF77-FE69CB6392B7@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <510304A7.2000304@FreeBSD.org> References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <1B345827-76F0-49C7-8D54-82866938E0A1@theravensnest.org> <510290A1.5010809@FreeBSD.org> <44ED3C73-4BC0-4EFE-9072-474E6FE32B71@FreeBSD.org> <510295E5.8060400@FreeBSD.org> <8B3FB147-6A38-4E2A-A5CA-F5EDEE1C0B5E@bsdimp.com> <510304A7.2000304@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 25/01/2013 21:35 Warner Losh said the following: >> This has been talked about in a vague way for years. >=20 > Warner, >=20 > just a nitpick, couldn't resist - sorry, so for years we talked about = the magic > 10.x release to become GPL-free? > Or was it just a goal for 'some day'? In the talks that we've had at different venues, 10.x has been a short = hand for someday. At first it was clear that it was too ambitious to be = in 9.0, then later it was a nice goal to have for 10.x, but it isn't a = show-stopper for shipping 10.0 if there's still GPL'd code in the tree. = Remove as much as possible, as fast as possible, but with the big caveat = of without removing features that mattered. clang is nice and all, but = it isn't yet a complete replacement for the tier 2/3 platforms for gcc. = It is unrealistic to expect that we'll have something that's functional = on those platforms in the 10.0 time frame, unless that timeframe is very = far in the future. Again, it is the difference between a goal (which we can fail to achieve = fully) and a requirement (which gates the release) that's the important = distinction here. Core has never set GPL-free as a requirement for 10.x. = They haven't even stated, as far as I can recall, that it is a desired = goal for the project. The goal has been driven by many stakeholders that = can't use GPL today, as well as a recognition that GPL-free is a big = selling point in some markets. The more we can do this, in general, the = better. However, the drive must also be tempered by the need to keep = current things working and not break them needlessly. Which, btw, is the whole reason full external toolchain support is = necessary. With that, we can kill three birds with one stone. (1) we can = allow users to use the vendor optimized versions of the gcc toolchain, = if they want. (2) non-tier 1 platforms could use it to build with known = good gcc/binutils versions that may live in ports. ia64 is often = mentioned here. (3) We provide a fallback for people that want to use = gcc on tier-1 platforms, but newer versions. We've only kinda sorted = solved these problems in a kludgy, error-prone tedious manner today, and = much work remains to bring the support up to the quality users expect = and need from the project. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01F1C63C-13D7-4C9D-AF77-FE69CB6392B7>