From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: law@cygnus.com
Cc: guerby@acm.org, dewar@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:40:00 -0000
Message-id: <200010122240.QAA09837@wijiji.santafe.edu>
References: <345.971320048@upchuck>
X-SW-Source: 2000-10/msg00302.html

I agree with your arguments that the Ada sources should be included in
the main GCC repository, and I would like to see this done soon.

But it is unreasonable to ask ACT to put its repository onto a machine
run by Cygnus, and associated by the public with Cygnus.  If we want
to say to ACT that using the GCC repository is the only right thing to
do, we need to move the GCC repository to a neutral GNU site first.

    Also note that I've got the financial committement from Red Hat I need
    to co-locate the existing box at an AT&T site which should provide a huge
    increase in network bandwidth.

That is nice, but the problems we should solve by moving the
repository are not a matter of to network bandwidth.  Increasing
bandwidth to the repository, while not a bad thing, won't help the GNU
Project in any of the larger ways.