Removing default build of gcc

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:36:15PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 14:59, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > 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 don't care much about gcc in current. It doesn't seem like the right time
> to kill it but it is a dead end and we should be using the pre pkg'ed 
> version
> instead (I know, easier said than done, but the Debian guys did it).
> 
> Either way, there is no hurry but it is a desirable goal.
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying.
> I would prefer if the hack to attempt using libstdc++ as a filter
> library were reverted altogether in 9.x.
> 
> I had a lots of stress with that issue as some people pointed at
> my libstdc++ updates as possible root cause. I felt some natural
> relief when the real cause was found but I certainly wonder why
> the change was made in 9.x though since it's clear that codebase
> will not be migrated to libc++.

You were finger-pointed due to the rule 'blame the last committer
from the VCS log'. Even less so, you were asked about it because
you probably knew most about possible cause.

I am not worried about the bug itself, which needs a proper
identification and fixing. I am indeed wery disappointed regarding the
attitude of the person who introduced the bug. Reverting the split may
be the best action in my opinion. Both in head and stable.
-------------- 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/e8922655/attachment.sig>