Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> 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.
To me your «no» actually means «yes». When we're talking manpower, it's
about the right people with available time and ability. It's not about
the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is
able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing
absolutely critical manpower.
Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for
keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing
toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising.
> > 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.
You were the one who suggested that sum, not me.
As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write
software. (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are
few.)
Cheers,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: