On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-...@web.de> wrote: > C Bergström <codest...@osunix.org> writes: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:05 AM, David Coakley <dcoak...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Goswin, >>> >>> Thanks for your interest in Open64. These are both known problems >>> with the build system. >>> >>> I filed two bugs in the Open64 Bugzilla database (bugs.open64.net): >>> >>> 779 : build in source directory does not work >>> 780 : "make install" does not support DESTDIR >>> >>> In addition, I think the installed filesystem layout will need some >>> changes to conform with distro conventions before we can create a >>> valid Debian package. >> >> Path64 and our cmake build system supports debs, rpm, tarball and >> various other options. >> >> Other benefits for package maintainers >> 1) Both of the bugs referenced above are fixed >> 2) Significantly smaller codebase size (1GB vs 100MB - amazing what >> happens when you take the time to remove cruft) >> 3) Builds *much* faster (Whole compiler on a fast machine and -j20 can >> build in ~3 minutes) >> 4) Very portable (Across Linux, Solaris and BSD's) >> 5) Packages already available on OpenSuSE buildservice >> 6) IRC community support - #pathscale - irc.freenode.net >> >> Feel free to check it out >> git clone git://github.com/path64/compiler.git >> >> ./C > > So why haven't you send patches for this to open64? Was it neccessary to > fork the project and split the workforce?
Path64 isn't a fork Some background PathScale took the original Pro64 code from SGI and added x86/x86_64 support. That source was released with major releases and eventually some students merged it with other work and it became Open64. (You can check the original commit logs to verify) Unfortunately PathScale wasn't a community leader before my tenure and this is the result. Since I joined PathScale I have forced all x86 development to be in the open and working on community building. Reasons we can't merge with Open64 1) OSG is nearly impossible to work with. I push for many things to be open and was constantly out voted or blatantly ignored. Is there any public visibility in what they do or direction - No 2) Incompatible licensing issues - I don't know who/where/how a lot of the code in Open64 came from. They have no official contributor agreement, no clear audit trail for older commits and refuse to change their ways. Path64 is fully audited and available under different licensing terms. (I'd bet that Open64 wouldn't pass Debian legal review in fact) 3) Lack of real open source community or involvement. Path64 has non-paid contributors and a small, but growing open source presence. Show me a single volunteer who is regularly sending patches to Open64... 4) Logistics - The sources were never in proper sync and diverge more and more. My list goes on.. I really don't know the best way to bridge the gap between the two projects, but I have *TRIED* multiple times and every time failed. Admittedly the one thing I'm not willing to do is bring the quality of Path64 down in order to appease those with lower or different standards. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.. Thoughts/suggestions? ./C ps. Apologies for sending the previous email accidentally from my open source account. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
