On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jaromil - jaromil@???
<devuan.kn.0edf9dfcba.jaromil#dyne.org@???> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, KatolaZ wrote:
>> This sounds strange and new at the same time, since GCC was indeed
>> designed to be portable and ported to several architectures since from
>> the beginning. Do you have any quote by RMS or by any guy who has
>> contributed to gcc to support your statement? I don't think that GCC
>> is a hairball, to be honest.

Oh, a hairball can be portable in its entirety:-) It is just hard to
use parts of it.

GCC was deliberately making things interdepend on each other, even
without technical reasons, simply to prevent commercial entities to
replace the e.g. front-end of the compiler with some proprietary code
and then have that use the GPL backend. This would enable a new,
proprietary language to leverage all the optimizations gcc has. So
this prevents what Apple does with swift on llvm right now, and I
understand the reasoning behind that decision, even though I regret it
since it prevents us from having many valuable tools for code analysis
and refactoring.

https://lwn.net/Articles/629259/ covers the most recent flare-up when
somebody wanted to make the AST of GCC accessible.

> This is not the first post in which this spamgourmet account is
> spreading FUD. We may need to react to this beyond argumenting.

I don't see anything I said on this list to be related to be spreading
Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt.

I did argue for some of things I think are sensible, just like
everybody else here. All of them can be implemented _without_ systemd
(and I have or had them running that way). Yes, one of the ideas I
like was first proposed by Lennart, but is this about building a new
distribution or about holding a grudge?

If it is the later, then you won't need to bother to ban me.