Joe Buck wrote: > I suggest killing the file; we could later establish a consultants web > page for gcc.gnu.org but we could treat that as a separate issue.
I suggest killing the file as well. I'm certainly honored that CodeSourcery is being used as an example of a company that works on GCC in this thread. But, I'm not very keen on replacing the SERVICE file with some kind of listing on gcc.gnu.org, either. I've always thought it was a good thing that we kept the GCC site and mailing lists non-commercial. While various participants in GCC development work for companies that compete in the marketplace (whether for GCC business, for design wins, for operating system business, or whatever), we are, in the context of the GCC web site, we are collaborators aiming towards the common goal of a great free compiler. I'd rather let people who want customization, support, etc. use other means to figure out who provides those services. Then we don't have to worry about who's listed in what order on the web site, etc. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
