Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> > The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free >> > Software. >> >> That is the title of that section. >> >> If you bother to read it, you'll see "We will never make the system >> require the use of a non-free component. " > > A binary which has been compiled using a non-free compiler does not > require non-free software to run; nor does it require the same compiler > to be built again. If it does, then it doesn't belong in main; that is > not in dispute.
It certainly does require the same compiler to be built again. See "Reflections on Trusting Trust"; the choice of compiler is part of the language spec. The source is what's needed to replicate the binary. A compiler which compiles to PPC code, for example, won't replicate an x86 binary. Similarly, an SSE-aware compiler is not the same as a 386 compiler. > No, it is not. What you advocate is essentially that a later compilation > must result in the exact same binary, disregarding the fact that our > toolchain will change.. I think you mischaracterize your opponent's argument. Rather, we want indistinguishable binaries. Going from gcc 2.95 to 3.4 certainly produces changes, but not of the sort discussed here -- in this case, he's saying it does require icc to get the useful binary. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]