Dave:
Gerald, you've jumped to a false conclusion there; "was hijacked" should
read "has bitrotted".
"Hijacked" is a pejorative term, and also historically and factually
inaccurate. Objsw.com maintained the FAQ initially, but some time ago (around
2001 off the top of my head) it became clear that it had fallen into
disrepair, and Bill Gatliff, who was then and is now an active and valuable
contributing member of the crossgcc community, volunteered to take it over.
He then actively maintained it for several years and it was only when his
website got hacked and wiped out sometime last year that the link became out
of date. He has been slow in getting his website rebuilt and hasn't put the
FAQ back up yet; which is why I've Cc'd him in on this thread.
Indeed, "bitrotted" is in fact a better description of what is happening.
Bill, you need to make your intentions clear as to whether you are able and
willing to resume your maintainance duties. Are you going to get the crossgcc
FAQ back up there? If not, probably the best thing to do would be to replace
the paragraph with a reference to the mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and
to Dan Kegel's crosstool and the related website.
Thanks for the kind words, Dave. I am still quite committed to the
crossgcc community, but I'm doing a lot of work behind the scenes as of
late.
It's ironic that the security breach came through the Wiki software I
had set up as a supplement to the FAQ. A wiki that _nobody_ seemed to
pay any attention to. Ever. Even when it was clear that many of the
information needs of the crossgcc community were not being well met by a
FAQ-type document. Even when I had posted tutorials and detailed build
procedures in the Wiki, which were really too detailed for a FAQ.
I don't think that a blanket link to crosstool is what is needed,
because there is a lot of information that crossgcc'ers need that
crosstool doesn't address, for example how to integrate newlib into an
embedded system. Crosstool doesn't even do newlib, in fact.
I'm happy to resume hosting the crossgcc document, but I don't have the
time at the moment to give it a major overhaul--- which is what it
needs. And I hesitate to restore a document that is out of date. And I
still think a Wiki is the way to go, and I'm willing to donate a
dedicated machine and a more secure Wiki installation towards that
goal. But since nobody contributed before, I don't have any reason to
believe anyone will contribute now. Which makes me wonder if anyone is
using it, and I don't have the time to maintain a document that nobody
reads. We couldn't even get anyone to change the URL in the mailing
list to point to the right place.
To summarize, I'm happy to re-post the FAQ but it is out of date and has
been for some time. It needs someone with the interest and time to
update it. Furthermore, I'm willing to donate resources to provide a
Wiki, which I think is a better way to provide the information that
people might be looking for. But in both cases only if someone will
actually use it. Suggestions welcome.
At any rate, I would prefer the term "hijacked" not be used, since it is
historically and factually inaccurate.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
