On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:56:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > gcc would be something that I would be willing to give special
> > > dispensation for - espescially since I know it tests itself on
> > > passes 2 and 3. Gcc is, therefore, part of the set of packages we
> > > call build essentials.
> > >
> > > However, this is not a dispensation that should be lightly
> > > given. Bootstrapping from scratch should be kept to a bare minimum of
> > > preinstalled packages -- the build essentials.
> >
> > What do you mean "dispensation"? You're trying to add a special rule
> > that programs can't build-depends themselves, which isn't found or implied
> > anywhere in the DFSG or Social Contract. In fact, it contradicts the Social
> > Contract, which says we will support our users.
>
> Horse puckey.
>
> This is a technical issue, and has nothing to do with the Social Contract.
It is? It doesn't?
``I don't like the way people write programming languages in
themselves. Now, sure, for gcc, we'll have to make an exception, but the
rest of them can just get lost.'' doesn't sound particularly technical.
mercury's another example, I think, although it at least compiles to
C code.
So they can't be automatically built for new architectures. Big
deal. That's no reason to get rid of them for everyone.
If you want a techincal discussion, work out how to automatically and
reliably crosscompile stuff and actually *fix* the problem, rather than
trying to hide the fact that it exists at all.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpZig4_Rf7F3.pgp
Description: PGP signature