Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:58:00 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Cliff Sarginson <cls@raggedclown.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's use of GCC (Was: Bystander shot by a spam filter.) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030104144946.02936440@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3E174A4B.7D8D3B18@mindspring.com> References: <200212312041.gBVKfr183480@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3E120659.3D60EB30@mindspring.com> <20030101140530.GA11468@raggedclown.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20030104112345.02a48b70@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:55 PM 1/4/2003, Terry Lambert wrote: >I believe it's because a tools dependency is an indirect >dependency. > >By trying to treat it as if it were a direct dependency, you >sabatoge my argument against direct dependencies on GCC-specific >syntax in source files. Please don't do that. I'm not trying to undermine your argument; I'm looking at things a different way. (You might say I'm using a different coordinate system.) It matters not to me whether dependencies are "direct" nor "indirect," but rather the degree to which one is dependent. I want to be able to make full use of the product without having any GPLed code rotating on my disk. If I can't rebuild the kernel, patch security holes, etc. without using GPLed code, then I am dependent upon GPLed software, which I do not wish to be. >Do you mind if I steal and republish this (i.e. "can I quote you?")? >I will give you credit for originating it, of course. Sure! I have plans to write this into a column one day, so please do credit me. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20030104144946.02936440>