Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #10972 > unrolled thread

Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-28 11:50 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2019-09-28 12:00 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2019-09-28 12:50 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-09-28 15:30 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-09-28 16:20 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2019-09-28 21:10 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-09-29 11:40 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 12:10 +0200
            Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Hector Oron <zumbi@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 12:20 +0200
              Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 12:30 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 23:20 +0200
              Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 16:20 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2019-09-29 17:10 +0200
                  Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2019-09-29 19:10 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-09-29 01:00 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-09-28 16:00 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-28 16:20 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-09-28 18:20 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-28 19:00 +0200
            Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-09-28 19:20 +0200
              Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-28 19:40 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-09-28 20:00 +0200
                  Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-28 20:10 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 02:50 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 03:20 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 11:20 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Hector Oron <zumbi@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 12:10 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 12:30 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Hector Oron <zumbi@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 12:50 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 13:20 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2019-09-29 13:30 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task, request  has seen Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2019-09-29 13:30 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> - 2019-09-30 01:40 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 13:20 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 14:00 +0200
            Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 15:30 +0200
            Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> - 2019-09-29 16:00 +0200
              Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Brock Wittrock <brockwittrock@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 16:30 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Brock Wittrock <brockwittrock@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 16:40 +0200
                Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-09-29 19:20 +0200
                  Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2019-09-30 05:00 +0200
                    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-09-30 10:20 +0200
                    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-10-03 16:10 +0200
                  Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-09-30 12:50 +0200
                    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-10-03 16:00 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2019-09-29 14:50 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Richard Z <rz@linux-m68k.org> - 2019-09-29 23:50 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-10-03 16:10 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2019-09-30 06:30 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2019-09-30 10:20 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-09-30 12:50 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-09-30 17:10 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-10-03 16:10 +0200
        Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2019-10-03 21:10 +0200
          Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-10-04 19:00 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2019-10-01 17:00 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task cascardo@debian.org - 2019-10-01 17:30 +0200
      Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2019-10-01 19:40 +0200
    Re: Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> - 2019-12-01 11:30 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#10972 — Using Debian funds to support a gcc development task

Hello!

I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support
to finance an important development task in gcc. In particular, I'm talking
about the one-time job to modernize the m68k backend by porting it from "CC0"
to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].

In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.

Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
linked the issue to BountySource [3].

As m68k is the oldest port of both the Linux kernel and Debian after i386,
it would be a shame to see it go as there is still very good upstream support
in the Linux kernel with new drivers being added regularly [4], even to Linus'
surprise.

I have already gained multiple supporters on the largest German Amiga forum
a1k.org as well some people through the Debian/m68k mailing list. We haven't
started with the funding itself yet since we still need to coordinate some
things first, the primary decision being which funding platform we are going
to use.

Since Debian is also supporting projects for a good cause using their funds,
I was wondering whether the project would also be willing to help support
our cause to modernize the m68k backend in Debian with a single donation,
I thought of something around $1000 to $5000 depending on how much the project
is willing to spend.

We already have a potential developer to work on the task who has a lot of
experience with gcc and of whom I'm confident he can solve this task before
gcc-11 is going to be released.

I have already talked to the DPL personally and he recommended me to ask on
debian-project to receive feedback from a broader audience of the Debian
project.

So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CC0Transition
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91851
> [3] https://www.bountysource.com/issues/80706251-m68k-convert-the-backend-to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases
> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/24/993

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10973

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On 2019-09-28 11:44, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I'm posting here on behalf the Debian Ports team as we're seeking support

Just for clarification, what you call "Debian Ports team" is the group
of porters working on some of the ports hosted on the "Debian Ports" [1]
service. The Debian Ports admins are not related to this group of
porters.

Regards,
Aurelien

[1] https://www.ports.debian.org/

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10974

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 11:44:26AM +0200
      ...
> to "MODE_CC" as described in [1].
> 
> In the future, gcc upstream expects all backends to be using MODE_CC for the
> internal register representation as the old CC0 is supposed to be removed.
     ...
> I have already talked to the DPL personally and he recommended me to ask on
> debian-project to receive feedback from a broader audience of the Debian
> project.
> 
> So, would -project be willing to support our cause through Debian funds?

Yes.

Because Libre software is NOT gratuit software



Groeten
Geert Stappers

> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CC0Transition
-- 
Leven en laten leven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10975

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.

So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of
existing developers and users.

I don't think Debian should subsidise this group, beyond providing the
usual ports infrastructure.

If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
otherwise.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10978

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> otherwise.

what about keeping old contributors attracted?


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10985

On Sat, 2019-09-28 at 14:11:22 +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
> > Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
> > otherwise.
> 
> what about keeping old contributors attracted?

I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer
of course can include a company volunteering employees time f.ex.).

I already find the LTS effort borderline, where I try to refuse out
of principle to do LTS work for packages I maintain, and where I've
found myself being pretty unhappy that one time I had to do some of
that for a native package, which would have had a very weird release
history otherwise. :/

Regards,
Guillem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10999

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 09:07:51PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > what about keeping old contributors attracted?
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer
> of course can include a company volunteering employees time f.ex.).

agreed.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11000

On 9/28/19 9:07 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm afraid this argument cuts both ways. I would find it extremely
> demotivating if Debian started spending money to pay people to work
> on tasks that up to now have been volunteer based (where volunteer
> of course can include a company volunteering employees time f.ex.).

I don't think any of the projects like gcc, the kernel, binutils or
glibc are maintained by volunteers these days. At least I don't know
any volunteer doing that work on a larger scale.

At SUSE, we have dedicated teams who work on gcc, the kernel, kvm
and so on. I don't think anyone - unless they are rather wealthy -
can afford to spend working all day on a project without getting
paid.

> I already find the LTS effort borderline, where I try to refuse out
> of principle to do LTS work for packages I maintain, and where I've
> found myself being pretty unhappy that one time I had to do some of
> that for a native package, which would have had a very weird release
> history otherwise. :/

Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11002

Hello,

Missatge de John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
del dia dg., 29 de set. 2019 a les 12:06:

> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.

As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian resources.
Debian does not get any share of that work.

Regards
-- 
 Héctor Orón  -.. . -... .. .- -.   -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11003

On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
>> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> 
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian resources.
> Debian does not get any share of that work.
If the work is being paid, it's not volunteers time. That doesn't make sense.

You could argue about Debian resources being used without paying Debian.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11022

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 12:22:21 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

> On 9/29/19 12:13 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> >> extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> > unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian resources.
> > Debian does not get any share of that work.
> If the work is being paid, it's not volunteers time. That doesn't make sense.

LTS uses the volunteer time of all Debian contributors and teams
affected by it (security team, ftp-master, buildd admins, DSA, …).
 
> You could argue about Debian resources being used without paying Debian.

Those resources are operated by volunteers.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Alanis Morissette: Joining You

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11015

Hi,

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for the
> > extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> 
> As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian
> unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian resources.
> Debian does not get any share of that work.

I'm afraid that this summary is too simple and thus misleading.

* Freexian (the "another company") is not owned by Debian, but it's not
  unrelated to Debian. I funded that company, as a Debian developer, to
  let me contribute to Debian while being paid by customers who are Debian
  users.
* Freexian doesn't "use Debian volunteers", nobody is forced to work for
  Freexian, they all asked to join the team of paid contributors. But
  Freexian pays them for the LTS work, that's correct.
* While we use Debian resources, we are using Debian resources just like
  any other Debian contributor, the fact that we are paid doesn't change
  anything. Many Debian contributors are being paid as part of their work.
  It's just more visible in this case.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11018

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > Not sure what the problem with LTS is. I thought companies pay for 
> > > the extra effort. I think it's a perfectly fine business model.
> > 
> > As a very simple summary, companies pay another company (Debian 
> > unrelated) to use Debian volunteers time and Debian resources. 
> > Debian does not get any share of that work.
> 
> I'm afraid that this summary is too simple and thus misleading.
> 
> * Freexian (the "another company") is not owned by Debian, but it's 
>   not unrelated to Debian. I funded that company, as a Debian 
>   developer, to let me contribute to Debian while being paid by 
>   customers who are Debian users.

It is "unrelated to Debian" same way as it is unrelated to Debian how 
often and how loud I sneeze while while dput'ing packages.


> * Freexian doesn't "use Debian volunteers", nobody is forced to work 
>   for Freexian, they all asked to join the team of paid contributors. 
>   But Freexian pays them for the LTS work, that's correct.

Debian volunteers indeed are asked nicely if they want to spend their 
volunteer time on that not-really-Debian-thing-labeled-confusingly.

And yes, Debian volunteers are also offered to get paid for such work.


> * While we use Debian resources, we are using Debian resources just 
>   like any other Debian contributor, the fact that we are paid doesn't 
>   change anything. Many Debian contributors are being paid as part of 
>   their work. It's just more visible in this case.

"any other Debian contributor" do not use the name Debian for their 
not-really-Debian activities.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11019

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 17:00 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2019-09-29 16:15:30)
[...]
> > * Freexian doesn't "use Debian volunteers", nobody is forced to work 
> >   for Freexian, they all asked to join the team of paid contributors. 
> >   But Freexian pays them for the LTS work, that's correct.
> 
> Debian volunteers indeed are asked nicely if they want to spend their 
> volunteer time on that not-really-Debian-thing-labeled-confusingly.
[...]

Debian LTS is a really-Debian-thing.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10988

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>I don't believe anyone is stuck using old m68k hardware that they can't
>afford to upgrade - the cost of maintaining (or buying) m68k systems
>that can run Debian is likely to be high, compared to a PC.
>
>So the m68k port seems to be only a fun hobby for a small group of
>existing developers and users.
>
>I don't think Debian should subsidise this group, beyond providing the
>usual ports infrastructure.
>
>If I'm mistaken and the m68k port is attracting new contributors to
>Debian, that contribute in other areas as well, I might be persuaded
>otherwise.

Agreed on all of this.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Is there anybody out there?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10976

]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 

> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
> linked the issue to BountySource [3].

Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port
alive?  I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian
funds.

As you point out, it's one of the oldest ports, but ports go through a
natural life cycle where they eventually pass away, and that's ok.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10977

Hello!

On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
>> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
>> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
>> linked the issue to BountySource [3].
> 
> Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port
> alive?

No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial
potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k
market with new hardware and software being made.

gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or
the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail.

If I had the necessary gcc experience to work on this, I would do it
myself. But at the moment, we have to rely on external help.

> I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian
> funds.

Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally
a lot more expensive.

> As you point out, it's one of the oldest ports, but ports go through a
> natural life cycle where they eventually pass away, and that's ok.

There is a very active community around the port so there are people
using it, although it's not for commercial purposes, of course.

Thanks,
Adrian

> [1] https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L80

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10979

]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 

> Hello!
> 
> On 9/28/19 3:26 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >> Since the lack of modernization would eventually mean that m68k support would
> >> get removed from gcc, I'm currently running a campaign to prevent that. I
> >> have already opened a tracker bug upstream in gcc's bugzilla [2] as well as
> >> linked the issue to BountySource [3].
> > 
> > Doesn't this just mean there's not enough manpower to keep the port
> > alive?
> 
> No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
> worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
> this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
> and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial
> potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k
> market with new hardware and software being made.
>
> gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or
> the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail.

To me your «no» actually means «yes».  When we're talking manpower, it's
about the right people with available time and ability.  It's not about
the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is
able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing
absolutely critical manpower.

Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for
keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing
toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising.

> > I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian
> > funds.
> 
> Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally
> a lot more expensive.

You were the one who suggested that sum, not me.

As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write
software.  (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are
few.)

Cheers,
-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10980

> On Sep 28, 2019, at 6:19 PM, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
>> 
>> No, it just means that the current gcc maintainer [1] for m68k backend hasn't
>> worked on this particular task yet because his employer wouldn't pay for
>> this particular work. Unlike the other ports like amd64, ppc64el, arm*
>> and s390x, we don't have large companies supporting us as the commercial
>> potential is low although there is still a small Amiga, Atari and Mac68k
>> market with new hardware and software being made.
>> 
>> gcc is just one part of the port, others parts like the Linux kernel or
>> the Debian ports are actively maintained as I mentioned in my initial mail.
> 
> To me your «no» actually means «yes».  When we're talking manpower, it's
> about the right people with available time and ability.  It's not about
> the number of warm bodies, so if there's just a single person who is
> able to do this work and they don't have the time, the port is missing
> absolutely critical manpower.

As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.

While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I think we all know that without commercial support, free software wouldn’t be able to survive these days.

All I am asking is for a one-time donation.

> Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for
> keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing
> toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising.

Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a regular basis.

>>> I don't think spending $1-5k would be the best use of Debian
>>> funds.
>> 
>> Is that really that amount of money? Paying a developer is normally
>> a lot more expensive.
> 
> You were the one who suggested that sum, not me.
> 
> As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write
> software.  (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are
> few.)

Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case here.)

Kind Regards,
Adrian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10981

Please respect m-f-t, as is the custom on Debian lists?

]] John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 

> As I explained in my previous mail: The development task here is
> something that goes a little beyond normal maintenance work and hence
> requires someone to work with a longer dedication on the task.

The required level of maintenance varies over time, that's completely
normal, and I don't see how this changes anything.

> While gcc is free software, it doesn’t mean the work on it is free. I
> think we all know that without commercial support, free software
> wouldn’t be able to survive these days.

Of course not; everybody needs to put food on the table, one way or the
other.  Some of us are paid to work on Debian and free software and do
it that way.  Some do it during our free time, either because they earn
enough that they can do it as a hobby or because they are a student with
free time on their hands, or some other reason that makes it possible
for them to contribute without getting paid for it.  This hasn't really
changed in a very long time.

> > Keeping the toolchain working is a pretty essential requirement for
> > keeping a port alive, and I don't think it's viable to base the ongoing
> > toolchain maintenance for a port on fundraising.
> 
> Maintenance isn’t the same as a one-time porting effort. Normal target
> maintenance work is usually a matter of discovering bugs and fixing
> them unless you are a port with commercial support where paid
> developers are working on supporting new features and hardware on a
> regular basis.

Maintenance effort over time by far exceed the initial porting cost, so
if the port isn't even able to surmount that, I don't think it's
long-term viable.

[...]

> > As a general rule, I don't think Debian should pay developers to write
> > software.  (There are some exceptions such as outreachy, but they are
> > few.)
> 
> Does that mean you would agree to supporting the effort if the
> developer came from a minority group? (It might actually be the case
> here.)

No, it means that there are situations where I think giving people from
less-privileged backgrounds a leg up so they can start contributing
might be appropriate.  The suggested project does not sound like a
project for somebody who is not already contributing to GCC.  I guess
you could try to do it as a GSoC project if it's in that ballpark.

(I don't think «minority group» is a useful classifier; depending on how
you slice it, we're all from some sort of minority group or another.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web