Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
Hello!
On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
>> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
>> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
>> linked the issue to BountySource [3].
>
> Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port
> alive?
No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial
potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k
market with new hardware and software being made.
gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or
the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail.
If I had the necessary gcc experience to work on this, I would do it
myself. But at the moment, we have to rely on external help.
> I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian
> funds.
Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally
a lot more expensive.
> As you point out, it's one of the oldest ports, but ports go through a
> natural life cycle where they eventually pass away, and that's ok.
There is a very active community around the port so there are people
using it, although it's not for commercial purposes, of course.
Thanks,
Adrian
> [1] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L80
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: