James Carlson wrote: > "C. Bergstr?m" writes: > >> James Carlson wrote: >> >> ... >> fwiw.. binaries even under a redistributable licenses are an absolute >> last option and end being a bug report with attached proposal on exactly >> what needs to be done for replacement.. >> > > For some, that's true; for others, not so true. I don't disagree with > what you're doing, but it's worth pointing out that others are headed > in other directions, and that licensing issues are not necessarily > absolutes. > If there's no promise from [insert-name-of-company] to open source it and the source isn't available *today*.. it doesn't exist.. I realize that's a hard line and I may/will duplicate work, but c'est la vie.. (A good example is the sun cc compilers (w/o the optimization libs) I hear rumors it can be done and it's planned.. it would be *really* great, but hasn't happened) > >> I'm not sure it will help this specific circumstance, but it seems that >> apache stdcxx is a possible replacement for SUNWlibC.. I'll have to go >> back and monkey with some Makefile bits to recompile and test that >> compatibility in onnv-gate, but worst case there's always patching :) >> > > I'm not sure that's compatible at the binary level like that. > > Are you also using only open-source C/C++ compilers? > > For my first pass I'm trying to reduce the number of variables to my changes or minimize at least. (since I'm changing other things besides removing the closed bins..)
2nd pass I'm aiming at fully open toolchain as well.. With open64 I'll have to make other changes to how ON is compiled. stab debugging format is explicitly being used which isn't supported by open64.. (seemingly small change, but I've tested and had unexpected issues) ./C
