Removing default build of gcc

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >> 
> >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc.  I've been running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that don't build with clang are now explicitly depending on gcc.  Does anyone have strong opinions on when would be a good time for head on x86 and x86-64 to default to not building gcc?
> > 
> > To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x.
> > Instead, there are still plans to ship working 10.x.
> > 
> > Please do not consider the personal opinion as the statement of the project
> > policy.
> 
> The goal is to try not to ship GPL'd code in 10. The goal is not to ship 10 without GPL'd code if that results in a broken system. The goal also as articulated at different forum, was for Tier 1 systems.  Tier 2 and 3 systems may use GPL code as a fallback if the non-gpl'd code doesn't work on those platforms.
> 
> That is to say, it is a goal, not an absolute requirement.

All you said is reasonable and quite coincides with what I thought.

Unfortunately, it has very tangential relations to what is proposed to
do and to the political agenda declared in the message started the thread.

I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of
the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g.,
are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/attachments/20130125/6926f7ce/attachment.sig>