D.gnu - GDC subversion project
- Gabe McArthur (12/12) May 15 2006 I'm so sorry for not getting back to you guys earlier. I have had sever...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (11/18) May 15 2006 That's OK, but I will hold any code until the agenda has been posted...
- Gabe McArthur (25/33) May 16 2006 I am more than happy to just host the compiler for right now. Frankly, ...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (35/70) May 16 2006 What I meant was that it prove to be more successful to focus on GDC
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (2/5) May 17 2006 I of course actually meant to write "libgcc" there, and not glibc. Oops.
- Gabe (25/47) May 17 2006 Again, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I was planning some ...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (17/48) May 17 2006 Ehm, this was talking about making GDC into a GNU project and having it
I'm so sorry for not getting back to you guys earlier. I have had several extremely complicated personal items come up this past couple of weeks. As soon as you guys have something ready, please forward me your patches to the GDC, and I will create a subversion repository for it. Then, depending upon your involvement on this mailinglist, you can have commit rights to the repository. Email everything to gnu.for.d (AT) gmail.com I'll give you a couple of days to pull it together. If you can't decide on anything, I'll just go ahead and put the latest version in the repository and I'll send some of you emails with commit rights. I apologize for holding this process up -- things got a little out of control. thanks, Gabe
May 15 2006
Gabe McArthur wrote:I'm so sorry for not getting back to you guys earlier. I have had several extremely complicated personal items come up this past couple of weeks. [...]That's OK, but I will hold any code until the agenda has been posted... Is gnu-d.org about hosting GDC development ? Or any project ? Or what ? What were your thoughts about changing GNU D Compiler to GCC D Compiler, and what about leaving projects to Dsource and just hosting GDC itself ? http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3622 Does it have the disk space and bandwidth for hosting the GDC binaries ? (around 100 MB per release, and some additional requirements for source)I'll give you a couple of days to pull it together. If you can't decide on anything, I'll just go ahead and put the latest version in the repository and I'll send some of you emails with commit rights. I apologize for holding this process up -- things got a little out of control.While the sources are free to use under their GPL license, it would be interesting to all of us if you explain where the process is leading... --anders
May 15 2006
Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...That's OK, but I will hold any code until the agenda has been posted... Is gnu-d.org about hosting GDC development ? Or any project ? Or what ?I am more than happy to just host the compiler for right now. Frankly, dsource does a wonderful thing, and I'm not looking to poach on their demense. I just want a relatively small set of things related to the GNU -- the rest can be disseminated via links to other sites and what not. I envision just the compiler, some core library (GPL or LGPL instead of Phobos), some kind of patch to the GDB (until it can get integrated upstream), and possibly some kind of extended library. Really, just enough to get a program to run and debug it if necessary. I'm not interested in much else. I think that's a really solid start.What were your thoughts about changing GNU D Compiler to GCC D Compiler, and what about leaving projects to Dsource and just hosting GDC itself ?I love the idea of changing names and forgoing wide-ranging projects. It unifies it. Also, it would be a great thing to eventually have this project merged into the main gcc distribution. I think that's a great goal to work towards.Does it have the disk space and bandwidth for hosting the GDC binaries ? (around 100 MB per release, and some additional requirements for source)At my current subscription level, I have about 1 gig of HD space and 3G/month bandwidth (brought to you by the nice people at www.textdrive.com). That being said, I have also just requested another SF.net project page (this is a fork, let's be clear) so the distribution of binaries should be less of a problem. (Also, I'm not familiar with packaging scripts for Linux distros, but it might also be useful to post those, if anyone knows how.)While the sources are free to use under their GPL license, it would be interesting to all of us if you explain where the process is leading...Right now, I just want to get the compiler on the fast track, stick the GPL on all its sources, and worry about shaking other things out later. -- I love the GPL, and I'd like to see more D software devoted to it, but that's a secondary concern for right now. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. -Gabe
May 16 2006
Gabe McArthur wrote:What I meant was that it prove to be more successful to focus on GDC now, since many people involved with Dsource seems to have understood gnu-d.org as being a fork of their own efforts and no-one likes that ?Is gnu-d.org about hosting GDC development ? Or any project ? Or what ?I am more than happy to just host the compiler for right now. Frankly, dsource does a wonderful thing, and I'm not looking to poach on their demense. I just want a relatively small set of things related to the GNU -- the rest can be disseminated via links to other sites and what not.I envision just the compiler, some core library (GPL or LGPL instead of Phobos), some kind of patch to the GDB (until it can get integrated upstream), and possibly some kind of extended library. Really, just enough to get a program to run and debug it if necessary. I'm not interested in much else. I think that's a really solid start.Actually I think the Phobos license (zlib/libpng, could be any BSD-ish) is better for the runtime than what LGPL/GPL. Even the glibc itself has a special clause that allows you to link it with your binary programs ? If we are extending this beyond the standard library, then the wxWidgets license is a lot more "popular" than the regular LGPL for same reason... (i.e. that it allows you to link with non-free programs, unlike Qt Free)It might be that getting GDC into GCC is a non-starter, if Walter and David won't sign over the copyrights to the Free Software Foundation... Then again, it might be possible to include it anyway as long as it is under the GPL license (or compatible, like Phobos zlib/libpng license) But that is something to clear with the FSF/GCC guys, and Walter/David ?What were your thoughts about changing GNU D Compiler to GCC D Compiler, and what about leaving projects to Dsource and just hosting GDC itself ?I love the idea of changing names and forgoing wide-ranging projects. It unifies it. Also, it would be a great thing to eventually have this project merged into the main gcc distribution. I think that's a great goal to work towards.Sounds good, I should have binaries for GDC 0.17 kicking around here somwhere. But those are NOT forks, just binary builds of the main... PKG for Mac, EXE for Win, RPM for Red Hat.Does it have the disk space and bandwidth for hosting the GDC binaries ? (around 100 MB per release, and some additional requirements for source)At my current subscription level, I have about 1 gig of HD space and 3G/month bandwidth (brought to you by the nice people at www.textdrive.com). That being said, I have also just requested another SF.net project page (this is a fork, let's be clear) so the distribution of binaries should be less of a problem.(Also, I'm not familiar with packaging scripts for Linux distros, but it might also be useful to post those, if anyone knows how.)I've posted several... (search for "RPM") There are actually two kinds of them. One is the same as the Mac and MinGW versions, in that they are as "small" as possible and uses the system GCC version - just adds the D front-end and the Phobos library. The other is a stand-alone version, which includes both of C and C++ too and optionally also includes Debugger and Make as well (i.e. the GNU variants). This is needed when you *can't* just use the system GCC. You can also use the stand-alone ("/opt") version if you want a "pure" FSF version of GCC, with just patches for D and not any vendor patches. The versions for Cygwin and Darwin need some OS patches, but anyway... There's also versions for Gentoo and Debian, but those need maintainers.The compiler is somewhat derailed, since we are missing David Friedman. In order for it to get back on track, we would most likely need him back or "handing over" the development to a team. Forking isn't very useful, it's already being split enough between DMD and GDC development I think. All the patches done for GDC 0.18 so far has "interim" written over them --andersWhile the sources are free to use under their GPL license, it would be interesting to all of us if you explain where the process is leading...Right now, I just want to get the compiler on the fast track, stick the GPL on all its sources, and worry about shaking other things out later. -- I love the GPL, and I'd like to see more D software devoted to it, but that's a secondary concern for right now. We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
May 16 2006
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Actually I think the Phobos license (zlib/libpng, could be any BSD-ish) is better for the runtime than what LGPL/GPL. Even the glibc itself has a special clause that allows you to link it with your binary programs ?I of course actually meant to write "libgcc" there, and not glibc. Oops. --anders
May 17 2006
=anders wrote:What I meant was that it prove to be more successful to focus on GDC now, since many people involved with Dsource seems to have understood gnu-d.org as being a fork of their own efforts and no-one likes that ?Like I said, just the compiler for now.Actually I think the Phobos license (zlib/libpng, could be any BSD-ish) is better for the runtime than what LGPL/GPL. Even the glibc itself has a special clause that allows you to link it with your binary programs ? If we are extending this beyond the standard library, then the wxWidgets license is a lot more "popular" than the regular LGPL for same reason... (i.e. that it allows you to link with non-free programs, unlike Qt Free)Again, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I was planning some work on my own, but nobody else has come forward with much in the way of an idea.It might be that getting GDC into GCC is a non-starter, if Walter and David won't sign over the copyrights to the Free Software Foundation... Then again, it might be possible to include it anyway as long as it is under the GPL license (or compatible, like Phobos zlib/libpng license) But that is something to clear with the FSF/GCC guys, and Walter/David ?Copyright is irrelavent. C is copyrighted. So is Objective-C and C++. Doesn't matter. We're talking about implementation, not language details. As long as what's written falls under the GPL when it's written, everything's kosher.Sounds good, I should have binaries for GDC 0.17 kicking around here somwhere. But those are NOT forks, just binary builds of the main...Not forks yet, but what about 0.18? I've contacted David a few times, and he hasn't responded yet. And I know that others have tried as well. If the word 'fork' makes you uncomfortable, then just think of it as an 'extension'.I've posted several... (search for "RPM") There's also versions for Gentoo and Debian, but those need maintainers.Hence why I didn't see anything when I looked, I guess, because I used to run Gentoo and now run Xubuntu. Also, might want to consider the BSD market, which I know nothing about.The compiler is somewhat derailed, since we are missing David Friedman. In order for it to get back on track, we would most likely need him back or "handing over" the development to a team. Forking isn't very useful, it's already being split enough between DMD and GDC development I think.Like I said, getting it back on track is the main point. I was envisioning handing over development to a few people here who are actively maintaining patches. If David comes back, great, he can lead us. Until that time, more people need to have commit rights to at least give the project a shot in the arm. Besides, if they wilfully screw something up, it's in version control -- what Gabe giveth of permissions, Gabe can taketh away. NOTE: People have about 24 hours to send me any patches they might want to include (and indicate that they're interested in doing some development) before I start putting the new GCC-D into subversion and put it online. Almost all patches will be part of a new 0.18 branch (depending upon conflicts). -Gabe
May 17 2006
Gabe wrote:Okay, so continue with the current licensing for now then. Sounds good.If we are extending this beyond the standard library, then the wxWidgets license is a lot more "popular" than the regular LGPL for same reason... (i.e. that it allows you to link with non-free programs, unlike Qt Free)Again, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I was planning some work on my own, but nobody else has come forward with much in the way of an idea.Ehm, this was talking about making GDC into a GNU project and having it included in the "main" GCC distribution. And for that, the FSF requires signing over the copyrights ? Just distributing GDC is not a problem...But that is something to clear with the FSF/GCC guys, and Walter/David ?Copyright is irrelavent. C is copyrighted. So is Objective-C and C++. Doesn't matter. We're talking about implementation, not language details. As long as what's written falls under the GPL when it's written, everything's kosher.Just as long as it is "continuing on" rather than "competing with"...Sounds good, I should have binaries for GDC 0.17 kicking around here somwhere. But those are NOT forks, just binary builds of the main...Not forks yet, but what about 0.18? I've contacted David a few times, and he hasn't responded yet. And I know that others have tried as well. If the word 'fork' makes you uncomfortable, then just think of it as an 'extension'.The Gentoo ebuilds are in their bug database, but nobody volunteered to maintain the package. The RPM spec for RedHat and Fedora can most likely be adopted for Debian and Ubuntu (perhaps with "alien" as a quickstart?) but someone needs to step up as a volunteer for their official packages. http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/gdc.spec (SRPM) http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48136I've posted several... (search for "RPM") There's also versions for Gentoo and Debian, but those need maintainers.Hence why I didn't see anything when I looked, I guess, because I used to run Gentoo and now run Xubuntu. Also, might want to consider the BSD market, which I know nothing about.OK, let's continue to make the current two GDC 0.18 builds work then. I don't have any patches at the moment, except for the changes already reported that was needed to "merge" Brad's and Gregor's two releases. The other issues have been reported upstream, in the DMD bugzilla... --andersIn order for it to get back on track, we would most likely need him back or "handing over" the development to a team. Forking isn't very useful, it's already being split enough between DMD and GDC development I think.Like I said, getting it back on track is the main point. I was envisioning handing over development to a few people here who are actively maintaining patches. If David comes back, great, he can lead us.
May 17 2006