Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 30/12/14 07:20, Luke Shumaker wrote: At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On 12/30/2014 09:45 AM, Riley Baird wrote: Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler. If you were going to pick apart something because of the license, you probably wouldn't be doing BSD in the first place. BSD licensing is horrible, and does nothing to prevent antagonists from appropriating your code and not sharing their changes with you. Whilst I think that LibertyBSD is an interesting project, and possibly edifying to its developers, it is like fishing ice cubes out of an ocean filled with iceburgs, freedomwise. --
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
Better is very broad. Most people in these lists would see the GPL as an advantage, but none would deny that Clang or LLVM are essentially free and compatible (maybe after some proofreading work) with the FSF's Free System Distribution Guidelines. As much as I prefer GCC and the GNU GPL in general, I wouldn't like to see precious efforts going to porting your OpenBSD spinoff back to GCC before actually making it a wholly free system. Not that I'm going to tell you how to spend your time, but getting a wholly free BSD is obviously the real issue here. To be honest I like the idea of staying as close as possible to upstream OpenBSD while also meeting the FSF standards, so OpenBSD users feel attracted to make the jump. I think this was your original intention. If manpower is scarce, ask no more and keep Clang (assuming it doesn't need further liberation-wise tuning). There are some points that I would like to ask though, because your emails and website didn't clarify them for me: How do we know beforehand that LibertyBSD is actually compliant with the FSDG? Why are you so confident that it will make it to the FSF list? Don't get me wrong, I don't underestimate your work and knowledge but I'm afraid that my donation might go to a dead end. I think going a bit more technical about what you are deblobbing and how you achieve it helps. Assuming some trusted third party reviews your work and confirms it is libre, how will LibertyBSD be maintained? I look at all the work that Parabola hackers for instance undergo in order to clean up a GNU/Linux distro that is allegedly easy to clean, and I tell myself Hell, this is though. Have you considered building a community? Some organisation like the FSF might want to help you complete the crowdfunding, but then what? On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Riley Baird orthogo...@librewrt.org wrote: On 30/12/14 07:20, Luke Shumaker wrote: At Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:45:12 -0800, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote: welcome This delightful News I have some suggestions - Replace clang to gcc Well, it's based on OpenBSD, which uses clang or gcc based on the architecture (as clang does not support all of the architectures that OpenBSD does). Further, the switch to clang was pretty recent. Using GCC probably would be pretty easy. (to those on the gnu-linux-libre list: the original email was forwarded to the Parabola dev list, whre a couple of other replies happened) Is there any significant reason, other than the license, that gcc is better than clang? I really don't want to deviate too much from upstream, and as long as the license is free, I don't see a problem. If it's about the license, I can see that OpenBSD's, or Debian's decision of which compiler to use would be influential, and thus they should use gcc. But LibertyBSD is not likely to be influential, so I don't see the point in changing the default compiler. ___ Dev mailing list d...@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Dev] [Riley Baird] LibertyBSD - OpenBSD minus the blobs
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Isaac David Reyes González isacdaa...@gmail.com wrote: Hell, this is though. Tough I mean
