On 2011-Jun-02 23:56:34 -0500, Rugxulo <rugx...@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. You said "hates" which is not true. And you brought uo up GPLv3 - which is completely irrelevant here. >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. 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. >"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). >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. 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. If you want a gpc port to exist then it's up to _you_ to create the port and submit it. >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). -- Peter Jeremy
pgpHwPhoDmNHR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
