M. Warner Losh wrote:
> We really need newer binutils in the tree.
>
> And we need a way to compiler gplv3 binutils into the system for folks
> that can do that without consequences... But many modern processors
> need to have the gplv3 version of binutils and that will be a
> continuing problem. One advantage of FreeBSD is its integration,
> rather than having to play version whack-a-mole like you do with
> embedded Linux.
When "we" last had the gplv3 discussion there were two lines of
thought that were proposed. One is "import llvm/clang" and the other
was "improve the infrastructure to support toolchains from ports." I
know that the llvm/clang project is moving forward, and I think that's
a great long-term direction.
In the short term I think we are well served on all fronts to modify
the build architecture to better support compilers from ports. This
would actually help with the llvm/clang testing too, and sidestep the
problems of gplv3 stuff being in the base. TMK there has been no work
on this direction at all, which is disappointing.
I know that there is a huge cultural bias towards shipping "a complete
system," and don't get me wrong, I am fully supportive of that. I am
NOT suggesting that we dike out the existing toolchain. Just that we
make it easier to use toolchains from ports.
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
