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.
