On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:26, Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:25:24AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:44:36PM +0100, Roman Divacky wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >>>>> Doug Barton schrieb: >>>>>> Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote: >>>>>>> At the moment you can already compile gcc 4.3 from the ports >>>>>>> tree, >>>>>>> however things like binutils only seems to exist in the ports >>>>>>> as a cross >>>>>>> compiling tool. How hard would it be to add binutils as a port >>>>>>> and make >>>>>>> the gcc 4.x ports dependent on it? This way you can install >>>>>>> gcc 4.3 with >>>>>>> the assembler and linker that play nice together during the >>>>>>> build? At >>>>>>> the moment, I have had to make binutils from a gnu downloaded >>>>>>> source and >>>>>>> then make gcc 4.3 with a silly make, IE: make AS=/usr/local/ >>>>>>> bin/as >>>>>>> .......... >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this would be an excellent approach. I am not sure I >>>>>> agree >>>>>> with the idea that we _must_ have a compiler toolchain in the >>>>>> base but >>>>>> it should definitely be possible to "replace" the toolchain in >>>>>> the >>>>>> base with one from ports with a minimum of hassle. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I like the idea of not having _a_ compiler in the >>>> base. I'm >>>> not really sure how that would work when you wanted to update and >>>> build the >>>> sources. I suppose you would need to install a binary port of the >>>> compiler >>>> (et. all) before you could build a more recent tool-chain. >>>> >>>> Perhapse another option.... >>>> >>>> If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what >>>> BSD is >>> >>> has anyone actually LOOKED? I think the binutils are still under >>> gplv2 >>> >>> at least this is what their root COPYRIGHT file says >>> >>> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/COPYING?cvsroot=src >>> >> >> It's not true. >> >> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gas/?cvsroot=src >> >> See COPYING. > > so something is GPLv3 and something is still GPLv2.... too bad gas > falls into the v3 category :( A number of gnu stuff isn't straightforward when it comes to licensing. Take gcc for instance: it's actually gpl v2 and v3, but it all varies based on what file you look at. I'm just amazed glibc isn't gplv3 yet. -GarrettReceived on Wed Jan 14 2009 - 15:47:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:40 UTC