GPC 2006 (Pascal) -- deprecated or "expired"??

[Matthias Andree]

Am 03.06.2011 09:59, schrieb Rugxulo:

>> As stated in the commit message, gpc was removed because it is a dead
>> project and no-one was interested in maintaining it.  It'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.

Call it dying or undead then. That's usually not reason enough for
someone who does not _need_ the port (for something other than to put it
on display, that is) to invest time.

> 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:

We have GCC 4.6, too, and newer FreeBSD releases will use newer GCC
versions than 4.2.X, too.

>> 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.

No, there's more to it. Bug fixes, adapt to changing ports conventions
as they are devised (some changes are actually in the works), respond to
problems (if a "maintainer" doesn't respond to a broken port, it gets
removed again)...

>> You seem to have missed the point.  FreeBSD is made up of volunteers.
>> Individual ports exist because someone in the FreeBSD community has
>> stepped up to create and maintain the port.  So 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.

So if you're brave, you're the welcome future maintainer of FreeBSD GPC.
See links in my previous message.

>> 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.

Those who decided that no-one spoke up to care for it.  Possibly until
you came.  But again, if there's no project that you need GPC for, and
that's useful for the ports user community as a whole, there's no need
to revive the port of a broken upstream software.

> 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.

Possibly not, but we usually have other more pressing or more
interesting projects to worry about than mourning the removal of a port
that hasn't seen upstream maintenance for so long. :)

Seriously, if there are Pascal ports worth contributing to the ports@
tree (if they have foreseeably more users than just you), then it may
worthwhile for you to first maintain GPC and then the dependent ports.

For lack of that perspective, things are quite bearable the way they are
now.

Best regards