From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19931 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2003 15:57:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19846 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2003 15:57:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO doubledemon.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2003 15:57:39 -0000 Received: from doubledemon.codesourcery.com (doubledemon.codesourcery.com [127.0.0.1]) by doubledemon.codesourcery.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5AFup9X010094; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:56:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x From: Mark Mitchell To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Zack Weinberg , Joe Buck , DJ Delorie , aoliva@redhat.com, cgf@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <87of17t2j4.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <3EE4F6AD.7060300@redhat.com> <20030609210940.GA15597@redhat.com> <20030609163836.A20345@synopsys.com> <200306092345.h59Nj3Tf021127@envy.delorie.com> <20030609173251.A20668@synopsys.com> <873ciitunz.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <1055227336.9370.14.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1055260613.9414.38.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 02:25, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2003, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > [However, I do think it's odd that the FSF worked so hard to get GCC to > > come from gcc.gnu.org, but binutils and lots of other GNU stuff still > > comes from sources.redhat.com.] > > But the binutils@gcc.gnu.org alias for the list was set up on 18 Jun 2001 > in response to a request from RMS. (I don't know about GDB, or about the > FSF position on which domain name is used in documentation. overseers > likewise has a list alias @gcc.gnu.org.) That's all well and good, but the basic point certainly remains: we've worked very hard to make GCC appear to come entirely from a machine named gcc.gnu.org, and similar work has not been done for GDB, binutils, glibc, etc. Red Hat domain names and logos appear frequently on those web pages. Frankly, I don't think this matters nearly as much as it might have in the past; the world has gotten a lot more savvy about GNU software and people don't seem to get confused about some company "owning" it nearly as often. I don't object to a policy that gnu.org domains ought to be used even for transient GCC mailing lists. But then we should be actively trying to set up {binutils,gdb,glibc}.gnu.org and/or sources.gnu.org; the use of sources.redhat.com for those projects creates much more potential for confusion. A first step would be do separate the sources.redhat.com site into a site for GNU project programs and non-GNU project programs; GDB would go on the first site, while Cygwin and Red Boot would go on the other. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com