On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:47:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Yuhong Bao wrote:
> >> and Apple uses GCC (which is now under GPLv3) and Mac OS X on it.
> >> Unfortunately, the iPhone is incompatible with GPLv3, if you want more see
> >> the link I mentioned.
> >
> > Apple does not use a GPLv3 version of GCC.
>
> Ah, actually I think I now see the OP's point. Apple is scared of the
> GPLv3 because the iPhone might violate it, so they are not contributing
> to anything that falls under the GPLv3.
>
> It is indeed in-topic. There are four Darwin maintainers listed in
> MAINTAINERS:
>
> darwin port Dale Johannesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> darwin port Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> darwin port Eric Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> darwin port Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> and three of them are not allowed to read the GCC patches mailing list.
> They might do something if CCed, but not necessarily so. Same for
> Objective-C/C++:
>
> objective-c/c++ Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> objective-c/c++ Stan Shebs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Now I wonder:
>
> 1) does it make sense to keep a maintainer category that is known to be
> inactive?
>
> 2) who should then get maintainership of darwin? note that there are
> some patches for darwin like this one:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/172498
>
> It's sad, but I think that there is need for the SC to take action on this.
>
> Paolo
Well at least that explains their total inactivity in the last year. Is Dale
the one still allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list? I recall that he
posted in the last year that he would be more active in gcc (but I can't find
that message at the moment). I had attributed the fact that they were not
active to the emphasis on llvm at Apple. However if GPLv3 is such a huge issue
at Apple, it does make one wonder if llvm will ever see a gcc front-end newer
than the current 4.2 one.
Jack
