Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:04:03PM -, Chris Lamb wrote: > If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software > patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement > that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME > Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours > and, by extension, on free software in general? I am in support of this public message. Yao Wei signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds, Do you have any examples of this? AFAIK we don't support development nor external projects using Debian funds. The only exception I can think of is helping Outreachy interns join the FLOSS community through contributing to Debian related projects. > We already have a potential developer I think it inappropriate to select the developers to reward with money in this way. Instead (once funded) the job should be posted to GCC & m68k related forums, FOSSJobs and other FLOSS paid work aggregators and the best candidate selected. > So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds? Traditionally, Debian has not used our funds to support development work, the only exceptions being Outreachy and Dunc-Tank. I think that we should keep it that way, no matter what the project is. Debian is just a small part of the FLOSS community, I think a better way to fund FLOSS development that companies don't want to touch would be a community-wide non-profit organisation (such as "The Free Software Endowment Inc.") focussed on this. Another option is crowdfunding individual projects; this has been used successfully for development (Bootlin's work on Allwinner hardware for example) so it could work for this situation too. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
Aye aye! We should distribute a fundraising site more widely among Debian for anyone in our community who is willing to donate to the collective defense of our tools. paultag On Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 8:28 PM Norbert Preining wrote: > On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote: > > that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME > > Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours > > and, by extension, on free software in general? > > Totally agreed, thanks a lot. > I have invested lots of code into Shotwell over the years, and it hurts > to see these patent trolls. > > Norbert > > -- > PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info > Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev > GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13 > >
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 1:38 AM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time > development tasks through funding efforts. I think that the purpose of GSoC (and other outreach programmes) is (or should be) mainly to grow the FLOSS community and bring in new people as existing folks leave. Of course the different actors use it for different things; Google uses it to enhance their reputation in the FLOSS community, students use it to further their careers, FLOSS projects use it to get things done that they cannot do otherwise etc. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote: > that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME > Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours > and, by extension, on free software in general? Totally agreed, thanks a lot. I have invested lots of code into Shotwell over the years, and it hurts to see these patent trolls. Norbert -- PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019, Chris Lamb wrote: > For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a > lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their > "Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086: > > > https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/ > > If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software > patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement > that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME > Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours > and, by extension, on free software in general? I concur, especially as Debian also distributes shotwell. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com "She decided what she wished to happen and then assumed that reality would bend to her wishes." [...] "Reality doesn't indulge wishes." -- Terry Goodkind _Phantom_ p133
Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
Having read the 'claim' being made, I for one, can not see there being a case to answer, however my experience does not cover the American patant/legal systems. To me this looks like a classic case of patent tolling. Any and all instaces of which SHOULD be taken into court to be struck down and the patent invalidated. On no account should these trolls be allowed to walk away without a legal rulling against them. Neil Where can I contribute to the war chest in order to help fund fighting this? /Andy On 28 September 2019 23:59:11 BST, Laura Arjona Reina wrote: >Hi > >El 28 de septiembre de 2019 23:04:03 CEST, Chris Lamb > escribió: >>Dear -project, >> >>For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a >>lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their >>"Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086: >> >>https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/ >> >>If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software >>patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement >>that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME >>Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours >>and, by extension, on free software in general? >> > >Personal opinion: I agree. > >>I plan to draft and publish a short "micronews" statement if there is >>consensus here. >> > >Thanks for volunteering :-) > >With my publicity hat on, I think it's better an article in >bits.debian.org. It does not need to be long. The title and link to it >would be published as micronews too. > >Kind regards, > >-- >Laura Arjona Reina >https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona >Sent with K-9 mail -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
Hi El 28 de septiembre de 2019 23:04:03 CEST, Chris Lamb escribió: >Dear -project, > >For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a >lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their >"Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086: > >https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/ > >If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software >patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement >that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME >Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours >and, by extension, on free software in general? > Personal opinion: I agree. >I plan to draft and publish a short "micronews" statement if there is >consensus here. > Thanks for volunteering :-) With my publicity hat on, I think it's better an article in bits.debian.org. It does not need to be long. The title and link to it would be published as micronews too. Kind regards, -- Laura Arjona Reina https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona Sent with K-9 mail
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't >afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems >that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC. > >So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of >existing developers and users. > >I don't think Debian should subsidise this group, beyond providing the >usual ports infrastructure. > >If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to >Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded >otherwise. Agreed on all of this. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Is there anybody out there?
Standing behind GNOME Foundation against Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC?
Dear -project, For those not yet aware, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC has filed a lawsuit against the GNOME Foundation on the grounds that their "Shotwell" photo manager violates patent §9,936,086: https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/ If we can leave the legal merits of this specific case or of software patents in general for another time and venue, can I seek agreement that the Debian Project would publically stand with the GNOME Foundation against this attack on a cherished sister project of ours and, by extension, on free software in general? I plan to draft and publish a short "micronews" statement if there is consensus here. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to > > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded > > otherwise. > > what about keeping old contributors attracted? I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer of course can include a company volunteering employees time f.ex.). I already find the LTS effort borderline, where I try to refuse out of principle to do LTS work for packages I maintain, and where I've found myself being pretty unhappy that one time I had to do some of that for a native package, which would have had a very weird release history otherwise. :/ Regards, Guillem
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > >> I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on >> mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up >> things. Sorry for that. > > Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people unless explicitly requested. > > [...] I see. But normally any reasonable mail client is able to cope with that. At least mutt and Thunderbird do. But I have removed that CC now. >> But that’s just your personal opinion on what the focus should be on >> when supporting a good cause. Someone else could argue about more >> diversity in software. We have something as the “Debian init >> diversity” project after all which is also a non-commercial but a >> community effort. > > I don't get your focus on commercial vs non-commercial here, I think > you're the only person in the thread talking about commercial concerns > as something that even enters the picture. It’s very simple. If there wasn’t any commercial interest in Linux on $ARCH, it would have stopped being a release architecture in Debian long time ago. Or do you actually know someone who has got a IBM mainframe at home (s390x)? All architectures in Debian that are release architectures are ones that are commercially supported. So if you argue Debian should support release architectures only, you are implicitly arguing that Debian funds should not be used for any targets that have no commercial relevance. >> I think it’s up to every free software developer which cause they >> would like to support. After all, free software also means we work on >> the projects we are passionate about and not what’s commercially >> viable. > > Sure; feel free to support the m68k porting effort as much as you want > and in any reasonable fashion you want. Nobody is going to stop you. > > I'm arguing against spending Debian money on toolchain maintenance (for > a port that's no longer part of Debian proper even!). Not what you or > GCC upstream or anybody else does with their own time and money. But my point is that everyone has a different focus on what good cause they would like to support and I think we agree that commercial viability the only criteria. Adrian
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on > mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up > things. Sorry for that. Mail-Followup-To. Don't Cc people unless explicitly requested. [...] > But that’s just your personal opinion on what the focus should be on > when supporting a good cause. Someone else could argue about more > diversity in software. We have something as the “Debian init > diversity” project after all which is also a non-commercial but a > community effort. I don't get your focus on commercial vs non-commercial here, I think you're the only person in the thread talking about commercial concerns as something that even enters the picture. > I think it’s up to every free software developer which cause they > would like to support. After all, free software also means we work on > the projects we are passionate about and not what’s commercially > viable. Sure; feel free to support the m68k porting effort as much as you want and in any reasonable fashion you want. Nobody is going to stop you. I'm arguing against spending Debian money on toolchain maintenance (for a port that's no longer part of Debian proper even!). Not what you or GCC upstream or anybody else does with their own time and money. Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists? I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up things. Sorry for that. > ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > >> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is >> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence >> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task. > > The required level of maintenance varies over time, that's completely > normal, and I don't see how this changes anything. Well, it would mean that software projects are not commercially supported are not in Debian’s interest. >> While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I >> think we all know that without commercial support, free software >> wouldn’t be able to survive these days. > > Of course not; everybody needs to put food on the table, one way or the > other. Some of us are paid to work on Debian and free software and do > it that way. Some do it during our free time, either because they earn > enough that they can do it as a hobby or because they are a student with > free time on their hands, or some other reason that makes it possible > for them to contribute without getting paid for it. This hasn't really > changed in a very long time. Okay, so we agree on this part. Some work requires paid developers due to the extensive work required. If you look at the MAINTAINERS files for gcc, the kernel or other relevant projects, you’ll see that they are often maintained by large companies like IBM. But that doesn’t mean Debian should be focused on projects of commercial interest only, does it? >>> Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for >>> keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing >>> toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising. >> >> Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target >> maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing >> them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid >> developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a >> regular basis. > > Maintenance effort over time by far exceed the initial porting cost, so > if the port isn't even able to surmount that, I don't think it's > long-term viable. I don’t think this is something that can be generally applied. The fact that BountySource and GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time development tasks through funding efforts. If free software would only be about commercial interests, nothing but SLES and RHEL on x86_64 and POWER would probably exist. > [...] > >>> As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write >>> software. (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are >>> few.) >> >> Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the >> developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case >> here.) > > No, it means that there are situations where I think giving people from > less-privileged backgrounds a leg up so they can start contributing > might be appropriate. The suggested project does not sound like a > project for somebody who is not already contributing to GCC. I guess > you could try to do it as a GSoC project if it's in that ballpark. But that’s just your personal opinion on what the focus should be on when supporting a good cause. Someone else could argue about more diversity in software. We have something as the “Debian init diversity” project after all which is also a non-commercial but a community effort. After all, everyone has different ideas in which regards they would like to support free software projects and that’s perfectly fine. For some people, it’s supporting less represented groups among developers, others support less common init systems and others like Debian Ports support less popular architectures. I think it’s up to every free software developer which cause they would like to support. After all, free software also means we work on the projects we are passionate about and not what’s commercially viable. Thanks, Adrian
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists? ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is > something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence > requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task. The required level of maintenance varies over time, that's completely normal, and I don't see how this changes anything. > While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I > think we all know that without commercial support, free software > wouldn’t be able to survive these days. Of course not; everybody needs to put food on the table, one way or the other. Some of us are paid to work on Debian and free software and do it that way. Some do it during our free time, either because they earn enough that they can do it as a hobby or because they are a student with free time on their hands, or some other reason that makes it possible for them to contribute without getting paid for it. This hasn't really changed in a very long time. > > Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for > > keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing > > toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising. > > Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target > maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing > them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid > developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a > regular basis. Maintenance effort over time by far exceed the initial porting cost, so if the port isn't even able to surmount that, I don't think it's long-term viable. [...] > > As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write > > software. (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are > > few.) > > Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the > developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case > here.) No, it means that there are situations where I think giving people from less-privileged backgrounds a leg up so they can start contributing might be appropriate. The suggested project does not sound like a project for somebody who is not already contributing to GCC. I guess you could try to do it as a GSoC project if it's in that ballpark. (I don't think «minority group» is a useful classifier; depending on how you slice it, we're all from some sort of minority group or another.) -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 6:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> >> No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't >> worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for >> this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm* >> and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial >> potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k >> market with new hardware and software being made. >> >> gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or >> the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail. > > To me your «no» actually means «yes». When we're talking manpower, it's > about the right people with available time and ability. It's not about > the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is > able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing > absolutely critical manpower. As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task. While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I think we all know that without commercial support, free software wouldn’t be able to survive these days. All I am asking is for a one-time donation. > Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for > keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing > toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising. Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a regular basis. >>> I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian >>> funds. >> >> Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally >> a lot more expensive. > > You were the one who suggested that sum, not me. > > As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write > software. (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are > few.) Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case here.) Kind Regards, Adrian
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > Hello! > > On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support > >> would > >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I > >> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as > >> linked the issue to BountySource [3]. > > > > Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port > > alive? > > No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't > worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for > this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm* > and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial > potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k > market with new hardware and software being made. > > gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or > the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail. To me your «no» actually means «yes». When we're talking manpower, it's about the right people with available time and ability. It's not about the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing absolutely critical manpower. Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising. > > I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian > > funds. > > Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally > a lot more expensive. You were the one who suggested that sum, not me. As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write software. (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are few.) Cheers, -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
Hello! On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I >> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as >> linked the issue to BountySource [3]. > > Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port > alive? No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm* and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k market with new hardware and software being made. gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail. If I had the necessary gcc experience to work on this, I would do it myself. But at the moment, we have to rely on external help. > I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian > funds. Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally a lot more expensive. > As you point out, it's one of the oldest ports, but ports go through a > natural life cycle where they eventually pass away, and that's ok. There is a very active community around the port so there are people using it, although it's not for commercial purposes, of course. Thanks, Adrian > [1] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L80 -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded > otherwise. what about keeping old contributors attracted? -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would > get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I > have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as > linked the issue to BountySource [3]. Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port alive? I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian funds. As you point out, it's one of the oldest ports, but ports go through a natural life cycle where they eventually pass away, and that's ok. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC. So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of existing developers and users. I don't think Debian should subsidise this group, beyond providing the usual ports infrastructure. If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded otherwise. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200 ... > to "MODE_CC" as described in [1]. > > In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the > internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed. ... > I have already talked to the DPL personally and he recommended me to ask on > debian-project to receive feedback from a broader audience of the Debian > project. > > So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds? Yes. Because Libre software is NOT gratuit software Groeten Geert Stappers > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CC0Transition -- Leven en laten leven
Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
Hello! I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0" to "MODE_CC" as described in [1]. In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed. Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as linked the issue to BountySource [3]. As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386, it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support in the Linux kernel with new drivers being added regularly [4], even to Linus' surprise. I have already gained multiple supporters on the largest German Amiga forum a1k.org as well some people through the Debian/m68k mailing list. We haven't started with the funding itself yet since we still need to coordinate some things first, the primary decision being which funding platform we are going to use. Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds, I was wondering whether the project would also be willing to help support our cause to modernize the m68k backend in Debian with a single donation, I thought of something around $1000 to $5000 depending on how much the project is willing to spend. We already have a potential developer to work on the task who has a lot of experience with gcc and of whom I'm confident he can solve this task before gcc-11 is going to be released. I have already talked to the DPL personally and he recommended me to ask on debian-project to receive feedback from a broader audience of the Debian project. So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds? Thanks, Adrian > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CC0Transition > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91851 > [3] > https://www.bountysource.com/issues/80706251-m68k-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases > [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/24/993 -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
