Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task
> On Sep 28, 2019, at 7:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
>
>
> Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?
I don’t know what “m-f-t” stands for in this context, sorry. I’m on mobile at the moment though so my phone might be messing up things. Sorry for that.
> ]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
>> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
>> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
>> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.
>
> The required level of maintenance varies over time, that's completely
> normal, and I don't see how this changes anything.
Well, it would mean that software projects are not commercially supported are not in Debian’s interest.
>> While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I
>> think we all know that without commercial support, free software
>> wouldn’t be able to survive these days.
>
> Of course not; everybody needs to put food on the table, one way or the
> other. Some of us are paid to work on Debian and free software and do
> it that way. Some do it during our free time, either because they earn
> enough that they can do it as a hobby or because they are a student with
> free time on their hands, or some other reason that makes it possible
> for them to contribute without getting paid for it. This hasn't really
> changed in a very long time.
Okay, so we agree on this part. Some work requires paid developers due to the extensive work required.
If you look at the MAINTAINERS files for gcc, the kernel or other relevant projects, you’ll see that they are often maintained by large companies like IBM.
But that doesn’t mean Debian should be focused on projects of commercial interest only, does it?
>>> 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.
>>
>> Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target
>> maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing
>> them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid
>> developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a
>> regular basis.
>
> Maintenance effort over time by far exceed the initial porting cost, so
> if the port isn't even able to surmount that, I don't think it's
> long-term viable.
I don’t think this is something that can be generally applied. The fact that BountySource and GSOC exist are the very proof that it’s perfectly normal to support one-time development tasks through funding efforts.
If free software would only be about commercial interests, nothing but SLES and RHEL on x86_64 and POWER would probably exist.
> [...]
>
>>> 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.)
>>
>> Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the
>> developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case
>> here.)
>
> No, it means that there are situations where I think giving people from
> less-privileged backgrounds a leg up so they can start contributing
> might be appropriate. The suggested project does not sound like a
> project for somebody who is not already contributing to GCC. I guess
> you could try to do it as a GSoC project if it's in that ballpark.
But that’s just your personal opinion on what the focus should be on when supporting a good cause. Someone else could argue about more diversity in software. We have something as the “Debian init diversity” project after all which is also a non-commercial but a community effort.
After all, everyone has different ideas in which regards they would like to support free software projects and that’s perfectly fine.
For some people, it’s supporting less represented groups among developers, others support less common init systems and others like Debian Ports support less popular architectures.
I think it’s up to every free software developer which cause they would like to support. After all, free software also means we work on the projects we are passionate about and not what’s commercially viable.
Thanks,
Adrian
Reply to: