Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Zack Weinberg]

As you all know, the configure scripts for GCC, GDB, and binutils must
be generated with autoconf 2.13.  This version of autoconf is now
thoroughly obsolete, to the point where recent releases of popular
free operating systems may not ship it at all.  It is thus becoming
increasingly difficult to maintain these scripts.  Furthermore, using
this old version of autoconf forces us to continue using old versions
of automake and libtool as well.  At the recent GCC summit it was
agreed that we need to make a concerted effort and migrate to autoconf
2.5x.  Exactly how we're going to do that, however, has not yet been
decided.

I have created a mailing list for discussing this issue in detail,
making plans, and implementing them.  All interested parties are
invited to subscribe.  I don't intend this to be a long-lived list;
I hope we can get this conversion done in under a month.

List address:     autoconf-conversion@codesourcery.com
Subscribe:        autoconf-conversion-subscribe@codesourcery.com (ezmlm)
Archives:         http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/autoconf-conversion/maillist.html

zw

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Andrew Cagney]

> As you all know, the configure scripts for GCC, GDB, and binutils must
> be generated with autoconf 2.13.

GDB and BINUTILS use autoconf 000227 and not 2.13.

> thoroughly obsolete, to the point where recent releases of popular
> free operating systems may not ship it at all.  It is thus becoming
> increasingly difficult to maintain these scripts.  Furthermore, using
> this old version of autoconf forces us to continue using old versions
> of automake and libtool as well.  At the recent GCC summit it was
> agreed that we

I guess the royal ``we'' here is GCC?

Fortunatly GDB (binutils?) also see a need to get off the current 
autoconf and as such, I personally welcome this move.

How does nathaniel and dj's work fit into this - its kind of a logical 
next step.

> need to make a concerted effort and migrate to autoconf
> 2.5x.  Exactly how we're going to do that, however, has not yet been
> decided.
> 
> I have created a mailing list for discussing this issue in detail,
> making plans, and implementing them.  All interested parties are
> invited to subscribe.  I don't intend this to be a long-lived list;
> I hope we can get this conversion done in under a month.
> 
> List address:     autoconf-conversion@codesourcery.com
> Subscribe:        autoconf-conversion-subscribe@codesourcery.com (ezmlm)
> Archives:         http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/autoconf-conversion/maillist.html

I think it would be better if this list was hosted, and made part of 
gcc.gnu.org.

Andrew

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 05:05:49PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>I have created a mailing list for discussing this issue in detail,
>>making plans, and implementing them.  All interested parties are
>>invited to subscribe.  I don't intend this to be a long-lived list;
>>I hope we can get this conversion done in under a month.
>>
>>List address:     autoconf-conversion@codesourcery.com
>>Subscribe:        autoconf-conversion-subscribe@codesourcery.com (ezmlm)
>>Archives:         
>>http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/autoconf-conversion/maillist.html
>
>I think it would be better if this list was hosted, and made part of 
>gcc.gnu.org.

I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked
about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.

cgf

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[DJ Delorie]

> I guess the royal ``we'' here is GCC?

A number of the configury maintainers are shared across projects, so
more than just gcc was represented there.  But there are a *lot* of
projects that will be affected by this.

> How does nathaniel and dj's work fit into this - its kind of a logical 
> next step.

Nathaniel is working on moving bootstrapping to the toplevel stuff, so
he's off on a branch.  I'm all for the conversion.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:

> I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked
> about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.

I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with
that.  Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll
discuss not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the
top level alone?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Zack Weinberg]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

>> As you all know, the configure scripts for GCC, GDB, and binutils must
>> be generated with autoconf 2.13.
>
> GDB and BINUTILS use autoconf 000227 and not 2.13.

I didn't know that; thanks for the clarification.

>> At the recent GCC summit it was agreed that we
>
> I guess the royal ``we'' here is GCC?

Quite a few binutils and GDB maintainers were present at the
discussion I am referring to, and they agreed as well.

> Fortunatly GDB (binutils?) also see a need to get off the current
> autoconf and as such, I personally welcome this move.

Glad to have you on board.

> How does nathaniel and dj's work fit into this - its kind of a logical
> next step.

Good question.  

> I think it would be better if this list was hosted, and made part of
> gcc.gnu.org.

Feel free to set up a list on gcc.gnu.org; I do not have the access to
do that.  I felt that as a short-lived list, the precise hosting
location did not much matter.

zw

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked
> > about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.
> 
> I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
> configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
> GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with
> that.  Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll
> discuss not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the
> top level alone?

I think this is the perfect time for such a list :)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Joe Buck]

On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked
> > about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
> configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
> GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with
> that.  Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll
> discuss not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the
> top level alone?

So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?  Thanks to both
companies for giving us so much free software work, but let's avoid any
company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's domain as much as we
can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse people into thinking that
something is a single-company effort, when it is not.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[DJ Delorie]

> So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at
> the end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?  Thanks to
> both companies for giving us so much free software work, but let's
> avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's
> domain as much as we can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse
> people into thinking that something is a single-company effort, when
> it is not.

Well, fair is fair.  You want a list on gcc.gnu.org for a project that
involves more non-gcc projects than gcc projects.  Let's avoid any
project conflicts by avoiding project names in the mailing list as
much as we can, ok?  To do otherwise will just confuse people into
thinking that something is a single-project effort, when it is not.

Most of the projects involved in this switch happen to be hosted on
sources.redhat.com, so it makes sense to put the mailing list there.
Heck, even gcc itself is hosted on sources.redhat.com.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 04:38:36PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this talked
> > > about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
> > configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
> > GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with
> > that.  Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll
> > discuss not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the
> > top level alone?
> 
> So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
> end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?  Thanks to both
> companies for giving us so much free software work, but let's avoid any
> company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's domain as much as we
> can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse people into thinking that
> something is a single-company effort, when it is not.

Joe, please bear in mind that all the non-GCC projects affected by this
- there are quite a lot of them - are already hosted at
sources.redhat.com and have their mailing lists there.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Joe Buck]

I wrote:
> > So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at
> > the end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?  Thanks to
> > both companies for giving us so much free software work, but let's
> > avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's
> > domain as much as we can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse
> > people into thinking that something is a single-company effort, when
> > it is not.

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:45:03PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Well, fair is fair.  You want a list on gcc.gnu.org for a project that
> involves more non-gcc projects than gcc projects.

Nowhere did I say that (that I wanted the name to be @gcc.gnu.org).
My real preference would be that we'd go to a scheme like @tool.gnu.org
for each tool, and use @gnu.org lists for common infrastructure.

> Let's avoid any
> project conflicts by avoiding project names in the mailing list as
> much as we can, ok?  To do otherwise will just confuse people into
> thinking that something is a single-project effort, when it is not.

There are problems with either choice of name.

> Most of the projects involved in this switch happen to be hosted on
> sources.redhat.com, so it makes sense to put the mailing list there.
> Heck, even gcc itself is hosted on sources.redhat.com.

No kidding.  We fought over that with Stallman for about a year, and only
managed to put egcs and GCC together again by agreeing to thoroughly hide
that fact (the choice was doing it that way or using GNU's development
machines, which are better now but that were really screwed up in the
98-99 time frame).

Now, if the folks at CodeSourcery really don't care that you slap the Red
Hat name on one more thing, I would withdraw my objection TEMPORARILY.
But I'd really like for the projects that develop code that belongs to
the FSF use neutral names.

This is not an attack on Red Hat; after all, when we were discussing
starting a project that eventually became egcs; it was folks at Cygnus
who asked me to join on the basis that I would play a neutral referee
role, to avoid criticisms that Cygnus was just taking over.  I deeply
respect the Cygnus/Red Hat folks for working that way.  So that's
what I'm doing right now.

Now, if Zack and Mark want to tell me it's no big deal, I'll back off
for the time being: we probably can't solve this issue satisfactorily 
in the very short term.  But uses of the "sources.redhat.com" name in GNU
should *decrease* with time, not increase.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun  9, 2003, Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:

> So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
> end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?

Heck, sorry.  It's just that, whenever I post a patch that affects the
toplevel, I have to cross-post it to half a dozen lists
@sources.redhat.com, and one @gcc.gnu.org.  I wouldn't mind having the
list @gcc.gnu.org, since gcc is allegedly the master copy.  I didn't
mean to push for @sources.redhat.com, I just meant to say I've always
wanted such a list.

> let's avoid any
> company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's domain as much as we
> can, OK?

You surely have a good point.  I don't, and I couldn't disagree with
it.  toplevel@gcc.gnu.org, deal?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[DJ Delorie]

> I wouldn't mind having the list @gcc.gnu.org, since gcc is allegedly
> the master copy.

It's not, neither is.  We've been manually keeping them in sync in
both directions.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor, Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 04:38:36PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this
>>>talked about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.
>
>On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
>>configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
>>GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with that.
>>Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll discuss
>>not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the top
>>level alone?
>
>So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
>end,

And your point is?  That I have ulterior motives since I have redhat.com
in my email address?  If so, you missed the opportunity to note that I
was agreeing with Andrew Cagney, also a Red Hat employee.

>and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?

Yes.  Definitely a conspiracy.

>Thanks to both companies for giving us so much free software work, but
>let's avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's
>domain as much as we can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse people
>into thinking that something is a single-company effort, when it is
>not.

For the record, my point was that gcc discussions should be coming from
the gcc.gnu.org domain.  There is no reason to single me out as some
kind of Red Hat chauvinist when I was not suggesting that the list have
a redhat.com in the domain.  If you are objecting to the fact that any
mailing list created at gcc.gnu.org would have a redhat.com in the
headers, then you should say that and be clear about it rather than
confusing the issue.

Just so *I* am clear: despite your supposed claim of objectivity (to me
saying "I am objective" is nearly the same thing as saying "I am
humble"), I object to what you are insinuating here.  You don't know me.
You have no right to characterize my opinion as being anything other
than what you read at face value.  You could easily have made your point
without your "So first...  and now..." It added nothing to your argument
other than the suggestion some kind of collusion between Red Hat
employees.

Btw, when you thank Cygnus/Red Hat for all that they've done for
gcc/binutils/gdb, be sure to include the not insubstantial cost of
bandwidth and computer power for hosting the site.

cgf

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:47:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>On Jun  9, 2003, Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>> So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
>> end, and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?
>
>Heck, sorry.  It's just that, whenever I post a patch that affects the
>toplevel, I have to cross-post it to half a dozen lists
>@sources.redhat.com, and one @gcc.gnu.org.  I wouldn't mind having the
>list @gcc.gnu.org, since gcc is allegedly the master copy.  I didn't
>mean to push for @sources.redhat.com, I just meant to say I've always
>wanted such a list.
>
>>let's avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's
>>domain as much as we can, OK?
>
>You surely have a good point.  I don't, and I couldn't disagree with
>it.  toplevel@gcc.gnu.org, deal?

Why not remove all of the awful taint of sources.redhat.com and call it
toplevel-devtools@gnu.org?

cgf

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

> Why not remove all of the awful taint of sources.redhat.com and call it
> toplevel-devtools@gnu.org?

Or avoid introducing dependencies on the gnu.org maintainers, and use
sourceware.org.

Ian

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Zack Weinberg]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

>
> Now, if the folks at CodeSourcery really don't care that you slap the Red
> Hat name on one more thing, I would withdraw my objection TEMPORARILY.
> But I'd really like for the projects that develop code that belongs to
> the FSF use neutral names.

I personally do not care one bit what domain name the mailing lists
are attached to.

zw
 

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Mark Mitchell]

On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 21:37, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
> 
> >
> > Now, if the folks at CodeSourcery really don't care that you slap the Red
> > Hat name on one more thing, I would withdraw my objection TEMPORARILY.
> > But I'd really like for the projects that develop code that belongs to
> > the FSF use neutral names.
> 
> I personally do not care one bit what domain name the mailing lists
> are attached to.

CodeSourcery is agnostic with respect to the domain name used for the
mailing list.

[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.]

If someone wants to set up the list on another machine, go for it. 
CodeSourcery won't object if it's @gcc.gnu.org, @redhat.com,
@microsoft.com, @sco.com, or anything else.

Zack took proactive action to try to move towards solving an important
problem.  He set up a short-term list to try to involve people in an
open discussion about what needed to be done.  I'm disappointed that the
responses are dealing with the domain name and not with the topic at
hand.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Joseph S. Myers]

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.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

 > Zack took proactive action to try to move towards solving an important
 > problem.  He set up a short-term list to try to involve people in an
 > open discussion about what needed to be done.  I'm disappointed that
 > the responses are dealing with the domain name and not with the topic
 > at hand.

Agreed.

[long rant deleted]

I'm going to register on Zack's list.  Anyone who wants to work on the
issue at hand, I encourage you to join also.

--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:42:15PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>Zack took proactive action to try to move towards solving an important
>problem.  He set up a short-term list to try to involve people in an
>open discussion about what needed to be done.  I'm disappointed that the
>responses are dealing with the domain name and not with the topic at
>hand.

I apologize for even raising an opinion.  I appreciate Zack's intent.

I agree that a lot of discussion about this issue is silly, so unless
there is a consensus that we (i.e., I) should set up a toplevel mailing
list, I think that we should just use Zack's list and move on to
actually doing the work it was designed to foster.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:25:22AM +0100, 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.)

AFAIK, all of the mailing lists can use sources.redhat.com or gcc.gnu.org
interchangeably.

I guess this message will prove if this is true or not.

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:23:05AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 11:42:15PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >Zack took proactive action to try to move towards solving an important
> >problem.  He set up a short-term list to try to involve people in an
> >open discussion about what needed to be done.  I'm disappointed that the
> >responses are dealing with the domain name and not with the topic at
> >hand.
> 
> I apologize for even raising an opinion.  I appreciate Zack's intent.
> 
> I agree that a lot of discussion about this issue is silly, so unless
> there is a consensus that we (i.e., I) should set up a toplevel mailing
> list, I think that we should just use Zack's list and move on to
> actually doing the work it was designed to foster.

Like a lot of other people, I don't care which list this project
happens on.  I'm on Zack's list and I intend to use it.  However, I
think that it's past time we had a toplevel@ list; can that be created
anyway?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Andrew Cagney]

> [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.]

For the record.

I've repeatedly requested gdb.gnu.org, but the request has been declined.

Andrew

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Mark Mitchell]

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

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Mark Mitchell]

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 08:44, Andrew Cagney 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.]
> 
> For the record.
> 
> I've repeatedly requested gdb.gnu.org, but the request has been declined.

How frustrating!  Did you talk to RMS directly, or just someone else at
the FSF?

I'd be happy to try to help you with this, if you think I can.

Yours,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:56:51AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>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.

If anyone has specific examples, I'll see about getting this changed.  I
didn't see anything at a quick glance.  I know that the cvs instructions
(obviously?) specify sources.redhat.com but I don't know why there
should be Red Hat logos on FSF projects.  That's just wrong.  FWIW, I
removed some of the more flashy logos from some of the
sources.redhat.com web pages a while ago.

cgf

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Andrew Cagney]

> 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.

Again, for the record.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/

et.al., is used where possible through out GDB's documentation.  It 
doesn't work when it comes to mainling lists and CVS, but then, as I've 
already pointed out, requests for gdb.gnu.org have been declined.

Andrew

Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Joe Buck]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:44:22AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> For the record.
> 
> I've repeatedly requested gdb.gnu.org, but the request has been declined.

I'll raise this with RMS again.  He can't very well ask us to deemphasize
Red Hat while blocking the obvious solution.

Red Hat logos on FSF web pages (was Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:40:31PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:56:51AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>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.
>
>If anyone has specific examples, I'll see about getting this changed.  I
>didn't see anything at a quick glance.  I know that the cvs instructions
>(obviously?) specify sources.redhat.com but I don't know why there
>should be Red Hat logos on FSF projects.  That's just wrong.  FWIW, I
>removed some of the more flashy logos from some of the
>sources.redhat.com web pages a while ago.

Hello?  Anyone with examples?

I would rather not leave these insinuations hanging since, IMO, it
reflects badly on my company and I want to get any improprieties fixed.
Putting Red hat logos on any FSF web page is clearly wrong and putting
any redhat.com addresses other than sources.redhat.com on the web pages
is pretty iffy, too.  I just took another look at some project web pages
and didn't see any evidence of this behavior so I need help to get
to the bottom of this allegation.

Or is this maybe another urbane myth like "gdb never builds", oft-repeated
and wildly inaccurate?

cgf