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.
pgp_TsCxdi6uk.pgp
Description: PGP signature