Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Siddhesh Poyarekar <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha,gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 2022-10-18 12:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:17:15AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> That is not true, Mark.  Your objections and questions have been answered at
>> every stage, privately as well as publicly.
> 
> Actually, going back through this thread, I see outstanding
> questions/issues raised by Mark, Frank, Alexandre Oliva, Jon Corbet, and
> Andrew Pinski.

As far as actual questions regarding the proposal is concerned, I think 
only Job Corbet's questions to Carlos/David are pending an answer; I 
deferred them to Carlos or David because I think they're better placed 
to answer them in their entirety.  The rest, AFAICT, are either fear of 
some kind of corporate takeover, discussions about current sourceware 
infrastructure, or just rhetoric, none of which I'm interested in 
engaging with.

The corporate takeover fear especially is amusing to me given how much 
of GNU toolchain development and infrastructure is sponsored by 
corporations right now but that's just my personal opinion.

Maybe the FSF hosted call next week[1] would be a suitable forum to 
discuss fears of corporate control of the GNU toolchain project 
infrastructure due to the LF IT migration, or for that matter any other 
questions you or others think may have gone unanswered.  Since 
sourceware is neither a GNU nor an FSF project, it probably does not 
make sense to discuss current sourceware infrastructure there.

Sid

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018997.html
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.