Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:53:04PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately, that's an area that the FSF wants tight control over;
they would be especially cheesed off if we linked to a consultant's page
and the consultant also advertised his/her ability to support proprietary
compiler development.
Well, I don't get why we could not require the same. I am just talking
about taking the subset of that page that is GCC specific and put it
on its own page in our webserver. And perhaps give more relevance to
those companies that are actively involved in GCC developement.
We could probably get approval for something like this. There might
be conflict-of-interest issues, if the maintainer of the document also
works for a company with a high position on the list, but that could be
solved.
But the problem with ordering based on contributions is that people
will then fight over whether company A or company B has contributed
more; also, people who do their homework will know about, say,
CodeSourcery's role in GCC even if we sort the list by alphabetical
order. I'd rather avoid those kind of judgment calls.
Also the world of GCC has change considerably since the SERVICE file was
conceived.
Most people looking for support have access to an Internet search engine
that will probably yield results as good or better than could be
obtained by consulting SERVICE. This was not the case 20 years ago.
I think Richard's idea to eliminate the file would not negatively impact
anyone.
David Daney
