Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> At some point, someone in the public relations
> department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by a
> misogynist who thinks child abuse is fine if the child cons
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:14 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 21:18 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 01:59 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Looking at:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
to nothing to GCC, whose names even did not trigger memories - unlike
David M. or Jonathan, for example, or Nathan or Alexandre.
For myself, I hav
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 12:05 AM
> From: "John Darrington"
> To: "Gerald Pfeifer"
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters of the
> > project will get the impression that the FSF and GNU are lead by
> > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
> >
> > I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> > much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
>
> If the c
> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> and contributing.
I agree, but I'm not clear if you're claiming that that is or is not
currently the case. I believe it is.
On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> and contributing.
GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
freedom for *
> The principle by which high level decisions in all GNU projects have
> always been made is how it best helps the GNU system as a whole.
> Contributors are exactly that. They offer *contributions* - the
> very meaning of the word implies there is no expectation of anything
> in return. Obviously
On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 2:23 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
> freedom for *users* is the priority. Assi
> I feel like this should be even more evident when dealing with
> something like a compiler toolchain. GCC's user is likely to be
> another free software project's contributor (as is my case).
I suspect that's not true. It certainly wasn't true when more major
large companies used GCC to compile
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:07 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Didier Kryn" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public r
It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
Collection". That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
Then it would not longer be GCC. It would be something different.
The whole point of GCC is to
[ Like many others who have posted to this thread, I've contributed
to GCC at various times as a hobby and at other times as a paid
employee. Here I'm speaking as a personal contributor, not on
behalf of my current employer. ]
I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassoc
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 13:31 John Darrington wrote:
>
> For myself, I have been a long term user/contributor to GCC albiet hardly
> in
> a major role. I don't think I've ever posted to this list until a few
> days
> ago, when all of a sudden these messages started popping up in my inbox.
> So
> ei
On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
>Collection". That allows the project to be disassociated from the GNU
>name while still subtly acknowledging its heritage.
>
> Then it would not longer be GCC. It
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, g...@gnu.org, rodg...@appliantology.com
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > > > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > > > anything of va
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 14:59 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC -
> technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually
> involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU foll
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:15 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
>
> The free software community is much similar to India. A conscious chaos
> where you can't teach discipline. People will feel home sick if there is
> too much order.
>
> People are trying to put a western template, but the first f
> Then it would not longer be GCC. It would be something different.
> The whole point of GCC is to provide a free software compiler for the
> GNU system and systems based on GNU, and not to be pragmatic at the
> cost of software freedom.
Certainly that was its initial intent, but I'd argue that a
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 09:30:48AM -0400, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> > When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC -
technical
> > and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually
involved
> > and contributing.
>
> GNU follows the
> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> always the direction in which it *should* go.
I agree. And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
an advantage or disadvantage of the free software development model.
> To give just one small pr
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 2:03 AM
> From: "David Brown"
> To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 11/04/2021 15:39, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >It should remain an acronym, but it should now stand for "GCC Compiler
> >Collection"
On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 14:07 +0100, Frosku wrote:
> On Sun Apr 11, 2021 at 11:08 AM BST, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 08/04/2021 à 17:00, David Brown a écrit :
> > > At some point, someone in the public relations
> > > department at IBM, Google, Facebook, ARM, or other big supporters
> > > of the
> > >
On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
>> always the direction in which it *should* go.
>
> I agree. And depending on people's "political" views, that can either be
> an advantage or disadvantage of the fr
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc,
wrote:
>
>
> I think it's misleading to talk about GCC “leaving” or “disassociating
> itself” from the FSF or from the GNU project. No-one can force the FSF or
> the GNU project to drop GCC (and I don't think anyone's trying to make it
> do t
To give just one small practical example, I'm told (by people who are more
familiar with GCC internals than I) that it is not feasible with today's
GCC to port to backends which have a small number of registers.
I think (not sure) that could be attributed to
j...@darrington.wattle.id.au - apolo
On 11/04/2021 17:06, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 15:26 Richard Sandiford via Gcc,
>>
>> FWIW, again speaking personally, I would be in favour of joining a fork.[*]
>>
>
> Glad to hear it :-)
>
> I will be forking, alone if necessary, but I've already been told by a few
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 16:56 David Brown, wrote:
>
> The big problem with a fork, rather than an amiable split (where FSF/GNU
> accepts that gcc wants to be a separate project) is the name. If the
> FSF keep their own "gcc" project, then calling the new fork "gcc" as
> well would cause confusion.
Jonathan,
It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
veneration.
I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
movement.
If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over
There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project.
RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
RMS is also founder of the FSF.
The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project.
The FS
Hey there,
I wanted to contact you about how we can work together linkbuilding.
Would you be open to the idea?
- John
On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of
> the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
> my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
> 20 years, has to be patiently c
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader
of
the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 20:19 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
>
> However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project. That appears
> to be a very common misperception.
>
> The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
> guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project,
>However, the FSF does NOT control nor own the GNU project. That appears
to be a very common misperception.
>The FSF offers various pro-bono services to the GNU project, among them
guarding some GNU assets for the GNU project, but the GNU project is an
independent (unincorporated) organization, w
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
> veneration.
>
There have been many posts over the past two weeks suggesting that without
RMS to guide us, GCC will become a pawn of the NSA, or that nobody h
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> There have been many posts over the past two weeks [...] based on
> little but veneration.
> Your own emails are always carefully considered
Thanks for confirming it.
Now, you were responding to me, not to the other posters.
As usual among RMS critic
On Apr 8, 2021, David Brown wrote:
> I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
> actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying
Hi Ville,
On April 11, 2021 8:04:07 PM UTC, Ville Voutilainen via Gcc
wrote:
> I don't love Jonathan Wakely's idea of forking libstdc++. I would much
> rather not have that fork happen. But I will follow that fork. I know
> him well enough that trying to talk him out of doing the fork is
> unlik
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's pretty confusing to outsiders.
It is indeed. Up to 2004 or so, I'm told, the FSF didn't even have its
own separate web site. Before 2019, it never seemed terribly important
to clear that up, but the confusion of concerns has always bugged me.
> T
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
>> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
>> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
> That statement is certainly not true with me and my employer. It is
> very m
> Il giorno 11 apr 2021, alle ore 17:45, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc
> ha scritto:
>
> Remember how much hate RMS got in glibc land for something I did? I
> said I did it out of my own volition, I explained my why I did it, but
> people wouldn't believe he had nothing to do with it!
It was cle
Snapshot gcc-11-20210411 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20210411/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On 4/11/21 2:51 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project.
RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
RMS is also founder of the FSF.
The FSF was
On 4/11/21 5:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 8, 2021, David Brown wrote:
I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
pleas
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that
the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been ma
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:04 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva"
> Cc: g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 19:28 Alexandre Oliva, wrote:
>
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagr
On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
That statement is certainly not true
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those reasons. What I
> don't recall seeing is the actual issue. Pardon me if I missed it; I
> gather I didn't, because you wrote something to the effect that I've
> sidestepped it, which tells
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:06 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> > bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
>
> I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert th
On 2021-04-11 16:29, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 15:23, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
sold your services assigns *their* copyrights
On Apr 11, 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?
> I gave them in my initial email. You can go find them in the archive.
Err, I've been repeatedly told (not by you) that that was a separate
discussion.
The reasons you pointed o
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 at 11:30 AM
> From: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva"
> Cc: "David Malcolm via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, 23:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, IIRC you and others have already disclaimed those re
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>
> I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> does.
I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
The main job of the GCC steering committee is to confirm GCC
maintainers: the people who have the right
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:04 AM David Brown wrote:
>
> On 11/04/2021 16:37, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> >> I guess my point is that the direction in which a project *does* go is not
> >> always the direction in which it *should* go.
> >
> > I agree. And depending on people's "political" views
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:40 PM Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:36 AM Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >
> > I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
> > does.
>
> I don't know whether anybody actually tried to answer this.
>
> The main job of the GC
Hello,
I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one
ever really knows.
I thought you'd like to know what "nobody" thinks, because,
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but
> you
> ignored it anyway.
How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
> *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided
>
On 4/12/21 7:13 AM, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you
ignored it anyway.
How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
There are irreconcilable d
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html
Thanks
> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)
Fair eno
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:43 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that,
> > but you
> > ignored it anyway.
>
> How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
>
> >
David Brown writes:
> So why /do/ people use it? I suspect that one of the biggest reason is
> "it's the only compiler that will do the job". For a lot of important
> software, such as Linux kernel, it is gcc or nothing. Another big
> reason is that gcc comes with their system, which is common
64 matches
Mail list logo
