Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 02:59:11 -0500 From: Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPC 2006 (Pascal) -- deprecated or "expired"?? Message-ID: <BANLkTik_XeSpOY-RTeng-t%2BJpQA9=-jBQQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110603065653.GB65291@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <BANLkTimmQ7UYubpe0R9NYCVDqXhApcSdGA@mail.gmail.com> <20110603001251.GA66356@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <BANLkTi=Qn6j4eVTxTcG0PdN1RjjvdEuQSQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110603065653.GB65291@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> wrote: > On 2011-Jun-02 23:56:34 -0500, Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Sorry, not trying to be rude here (honestly), but it is GPLv3, which >>clearly is not popular with *BSD. Please don't act like licenses don't >>matter. > > I'm not saying licenses don't matter. =A0You said "hates" which is not tr= ue. If you say so. My point was that if licensing is an issue, you can always include P5 instead (better than FPC for "classic" ISO 7185 code), but even that needs GPC (or similar) to build! > And you brought uo up GPLv3 - which is completely irrelevant here. You know that GPC is indeed GPLv3, right? Okay, well, as long as it doesn't matter to you, .... >>The whole point is, even if GPLv3 isn't your favorite, you shouldn't >>throw away GPC without a suitable replacement. Sure, FPC is >>semi-related (barely), but it's a whole different dialect, so the code >>is NOT compatible! > > I haven't personally touched Pascal for at least 25 years and the > presence or absence of gpc and/or fpc is not important to me. I'm well aware that FPC has better FreeBSD support "out of the box" nowadays. But both are portable, so there's no reason not to have each. But they're not "the same" in any sense. > As stated in the commit message, gpc was removed because it is a dead > project and no-one was interested in maintaining it. =A0It's nothing to > do with GPLv3 - there are many GPLv3-licensed ports. It's not dead, it still works, but it won't be updated because GCC maintainers don't support older releases anymore. The oldest still supported (barely?) is 4.3.5. GPC 3.4.4 and 4.1.2 are too old for them. And the GPC dudes can't figure out the backend changes every time something changes, hence it's a dying (though not technically "dead") project. It seems silly to claim that 3.4.4 is "so old and unmaintained" while still shipping 4.2.1, which isn't so much newer. In fact, I'll prove it: http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html GCC 4.2.1 July 18, 2007 http://www.math.uni.wroc.pl/~hebisch/gpc/ "My newest snapshot gpc-20070904." September 2007 is newer than July 2007. >>"No reason to keep it around" is silly. Practically speaking, I know >>most of you probably don't need or want Pascal, but it exists. > > And, as I said, it's up to someone who is interested in Pascal > to step forward and maintain gpc (or any other Pascal ports they > might like). Seriously, what maintenance? All someone has to do is build it. Okay, maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but it can't be much more than that. I don't expect bugfixes or added features, just a working binary. >>Don't take this all the wrong way, I'm trying to point you in the >>right direction. > > You seem to have missed the point. =A0FreeBSD is made up of volunteers. > Individual ports exist because someone in the FreeBSD community has > stepped up to create and maintain the port. =A0So far you are the only > person who has expressed any interest in the (lack of a) gpc port. Most people just look elsewhere. Rebuilding GCC is a major pain, in my experience. It's not for the faint-hearted. > If you want a gpc port to exist then it's up to _you_ to create the port = and submit it. Who decided to remove the old one?? Clearly they didn't even know about the latest version nor that FPC is not a compatible substitute. So whoever it was didn't do their homework. Just because you don't personally care about the error / omission doesn't make it less grievous. >>How hard can it be to rebuild GCC 3.4.4?? > > I have no idea - it's not in ports (lang/gcc34 is gcc 3.4.6). Same difference (believe it or not), the patches work for 3.4.6 also (see Kevan Hashemi's Linux build of GPC 2007 w/ 3.4.6, which I have on my Lucid Puppy 5 Linux machine in the other room).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTik_XeSpOY-RTeng-t%2BJpQA9=-jBQQ>