Removing default build of gcc

[Warner Losh]

On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:

> on 25/01/2013 16:10 David Chisnall said the following:
>> On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> 
>>> on 25/01/2013 15:21 David Chisnall said the following:
>>>> This is something that has been said on mailing lists, at BSDCan and at 
>>>> DevSummits in the past, without any objections being raised.
>>> 
>>> A simple test - has there been a core decision that no GPL software must be 
>>> shipped with 10.x?
>> 
>> There can be no such decision until it's all of the bits of GPL'd code in base
>> have replacements in and testing has happened.
> 
> I disagree.  Core can make a decision to set a goal.

This has been talked about in a vague way for years. The various pages around to document the process. Core has said that it supports the goal, but hasn't made it a Direction Of The Project because core has not in the past decade made any such pronouncements.

>> That is why it is a plan, not
>> an accomplished goal.
> 
> Right.  The question is - is this a plan set by Core, and so a Project's Plan, or
> is this a plan that individual project members have set for themselves?
> As long as there are no conflicts in plans or objections to the plan the
> distinction is insignificant, but not longer.

It is a project plan, based on the consensus of those working towards this goal.

>> This is why we have the wiki page tracking the progress
>> of replacements:
>> 
>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase
> 
> OK.

The DTC2 stuff isn't strictly required to have a GPL free system. The DTC2 stuff is only needed if you want to use non GPL'd tools to compile .dts files. Since these are typically in the firmware only, that makes the dtc compiler an optional tool. There's other issues with that page too....

Warner