Wrong link?

Wrong link?

[Ernst.Steenbrink]

LS,

The link crossgcc FAQ in the middle of the page:
"http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html" doesn't seem to link to a page that
offers the cross-gcc faq. Instead it appears to be a site of a consultant
trying to sell his services.

Kind regards,

Ernst.

Ernst Steenbrink
Imtech ICT Technical Systems

Henry Dunantstraat 38
3822 XE Amersfoort

Tel  + 31 (0)33 454 33 51
Fax + 31 (0)33 454 33 35
E-mail: ernst.steenbrink@imtech.nl
Info www.imtechict.nl

Re: Wrong link?

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 Ernst.Steenbrink@imtech.nl wrote:
> The link crossgcc FAQ in the middle of the page:
> "http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html" doesn't seem to link to a page that
> offers the cross-gcc faq. Instead it appears to be a site of a consultant
> trying to sell his services.

How embarrassing.  I'll install the patch below in a minute, since I could
not find a true new master site for this FAQ.

Mark, since it seems we'll have to make another try for GCC 4.1.1, okay to
install this there as well?

Gerald

2006-05-20  Gerald Pfeifer  <gerald@pfeifer.com>

	* doc/install.texi (Configuration): Remove reference to CrossGCC
	FAQ which was hijacked.
	(Building): Ditto.

Index: doc/install.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/install.texi	(revision 113922)
+++ doc/install.texi	(working copy)
@@ -1323,8 +1323,6 @@
 Tells GCC not use any target headers from a libc when building a cross
 compiler.  When crossing to GNU/Linux, you need the headers so GCC
 can build the exception handling for libgcc.
-See @uref{http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/,,CrossGCC} for more information
-on this option.
 
 @item --with-libs
 @itemx --with-libs=``@var{dir1} @var{dir2} @dots{} @var{dirN}''
@@ -1660,10 +1658,6 @@
 
 @section Building a cross compiler
 
-We recommend reading the
-@uref{http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/,,crossgcc FAQ}
-for information about building cross compilers.
-
 When building a cross compiler, it is not generally possible to do a
 3-stage bootstrap of the compiler.  This makes for an interesting problem
 as parts of GCC can only be built with GCC@.

Re: Wrong link?

[Joe Buck]

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:11:24PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 Ernst.Steenbrink@imtech.nl wrote:
> > The link crossgcc FAQ in the middle of the page:
> > "http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html" doesn't seem to link to a page that
> > offers the cross-gcc faq. Instead it appears to be a site of a consultant
> > trying to sell his services.
> 
> How embarrassing.  I'll install the patch below in a minute, since I could
> not find a true new master site for this FAQ.

There's a mirror of the old FAQ at

http://vmlinux.org/crash/mirror/www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/

However, it has a 1999 date.  I don't know if there is anything more
recent.

Re: Wrong link?

[Mark Mitchell]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Mark, since it seems we'll have to make another try for GCC 4.1.1, okay to
> install this there as well?

Yes.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: Wrong link?

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Joe Buck wrote:
>> How embarrassing.  I'll install the patch below in a minute, since I could
>> not find a true new master site for this FAQ.
> There's a mirror of the old FAQ at
> 
> http://vmlinux.org/crash/mirror/www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
> 
> However, it has a 1999 date.  I don't know if there is anything more
> recent.

Thanks for the pointer.  Given how much our build system has evolved in 
the last seven years, I guess this version is no longer fully applicable, 
and indeed some spot checks quickly found obsolete information, so I
decided to just remove the bogus link for now.

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Mark, since it seems we'll have to make another try for GCC 4.1.1, okay to
>> install this there as well?
> Yes.

Thanks, it's on the 4.1 branch now.

Gerald

RE: Wrong link?

[Dave Korn]

On 22 May 2006 20:11, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> On Mon, 15 May 2006 Ernst.Steenbrink@imtech.nl wrote:

>> The link crossgcc FAQ in the middle of the page:
>> "http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html" doesn't seem to link to a page that
>> offers the cross-gcc faq. Instead it appears to be a site of a consultant
>> trying to sell his services.

> 	* doc/install.texi (Configuration): Remove reference to CrossGCC
> 	FAQ which was hijacked.

> -See @uref{http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/,,CrossGCC} for more information
> -on this option.

  Gerald, you've jumped to a false conclusion there; "was hijacked" should
read "has bitrotted".

  "Hijacked" is a pejorative term, and also historically and factually
inaccurate.  Objsw.com maintained the FAQ initially, but some time ago (around
2001 off the top of my head) it became clear that it had fallen into
disrepair, and Bill Gatliff, who was then and is now an active and valuable
contributing member of the crossgcc community, volunteered to take it over.
He then actively maintained it for several years and it was only when his
website got hacked and wiped out sometime last year that the link became out
of date.  He has been slow in getting his website rebuilt and hasn't put the
FAQ back up yet; which is why I've Cc'd him in on this thread.

  Bill, you need to make your intentions clear as to whether you are able and
willing to resume your maintainance duties.  Are you going to get the crossgcc
FAQ back up there?  If not, probably the best thing to do would be to replace
the paragraph with a reference to the mailing list (crossgcc@sourceware) and
to Dan Kegel's crosstool and the related website.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Wrong link?

[Bill Gatliff]

Dave:


>   Gerald, you've jumped to a false conclusion there; "was hijacked" should
> read "has bitrotted".
>
>   "Hijacked" is a pejorative term, and also historically and factually
> inaccurate.  Objsw.com maintained the FAQ initially, but some time ago (around
> 2001 off the top of my head) it became clear that it had fallen into
> disrepair, and Bill Gatliff, who was then and is now an active and valuable
> contributing member of the crossgcc community, volunteered to take it over.
> He then actively maintained it for several years and it was only when his
> website got hacked and wiped out sometime last year that the link became out
> of date.  He has been slow in getting his website rebuilt and hasn't put the
> FAQ back up yet; which is why I've Cc'd him in on this thread.
>   

Indeed, "bitrotted" is in fact a better description of what is happening.

>   Bill, you need to make your intentions clear as to whether you are able and
> willing to resume your maintainance duties.  Are you going to get the crossgcc
> FAQ back up there?  If not, probably the best thing to do would be to replace
> the paragraph with a reference to the mailing list (crossgcc@sourceware) and
> to Dan Kegel's crosstool and the related website.
>   

Thanks for the kind words, Dave.  I am still quite committed to the 
crossgcc community, but I'm doing a lot of work behind the scenes as of 
late.

It's ironic that the security breach came through the Wiki software I 
had set up as a supplement to the FAQ.  A wiki that _nobody_ seemed to 
pay any attention to.  Ever.  Even when it was clear that many of the 
information needs of the crossgcc community were not being well met by a 
FAQ-type document.  Even when I had posted tutorials and detailed build 
procedures in the Wiki, which were really too detailed for a FAQ.

I don't think that a blanket link to crosstool is what is needed, 
because there is a lot of information that crossgcc'ers need that 
crosstool doesn't address, for example how to integrate newlib into an 
embedded system.  Crosstool doesn't even do newlib, in fact.

I'm happy to resume hosting the crossgcc document, but I don't have the 
time at the moment to give it a major overhaul--- which is what it 
needs.  And I hesitate to restore a document that is out of date.  And I 
still think a Wiki is the way to go, and I'm willing to donate a 
dedicated machine and a more secure Wiki installation towards that 
goal.  But since nobody contributed before, I don't have any reason to 
believe anyone will contribute now.  Which makes me wonder if anyone is 
using it, and I don't have the time to maintain a document that nobody 
reads.  We couldn't even get anyone to change the URL in the mailing 
list to point to the right place.

To summarize, I'm happy to re-post the FAQ but it is out of date and has 
been for some time.  It needs someone with the interest and time to 
update it.  Furthermore, I'm willing to donate resources to provide a 
Wiki, which I think is a better way to provide the information that 
people might be looking for.  But in both cases only if someone will 
actually use it.   Suggestions welcome.

At any rate, I would prefer the term "hijacked" not be used, since it is 
historically and factually inaccurate.



b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com

Re: Wrong link?

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 05:17:03PM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> ...  I am still quite committed to the 
> crossgcc community, but I'm doing a lot of work behind the scenes as of 
> late....

> I'm happy to resume hosting the crossgcc document, but I don't have the 
> time at the moment to give it a major overhaul--- which is what it 
> needs.  And I hesitate to restore a document that is out of date.  And I 
> still think a Wiki is the way to go, and I'm willing to donate a 
> dedicated machine and a more secure Wiki installation towards that 
> goal. 

Thanks for the offer.

But the GCC project already has a Wiki, at

http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki

which is actively maintained by the developers.  I think it would be 
best to use that wiki, we'd have better odds that active developers
would keep it current if it were in the wiki they use.

Re: Wrong link?

[Bill Gatliff]

Joe et al:


> But the GCC project already has a Wiki, at
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki
>
> which is actively maintained by the developers.  I think it would be 
> best to use that wiki, we'd have better odds that active developers
> would keep it current if it were in the wiki they use.
>
>   

I completely agree.

I recommend that we dispense with the FAQ altogether and put what we 
know into the gcc wiki.  The closer we work with the gcc team, the more 
likely it is that they will continue to support us.


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com

Re: Wrong link?

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Indeed, "bitrotted" is in fact a better description of what is happening.

I have tweaked the ChangeLog entry to say "gone", which is even more
neutral, and will do the same on the 4.1 branch shortly.

Gerald

Re: Wrong link?

[Bill Gatliff]

Gerald:

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>   
>> Indeed, "bitrotted" is in fact a better description of what is happening.
>>     
>
> I have tweaked the ChangeLog entry to say "gone", which is even more
> neutral, and will do the same on the 4.1 branch shortly.
>
> Gerald
>
>   

Thanks!


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com