[Aboriginal] Possibly winding down the project.
paul.sherwood at codethink.co.uk
Wed May 4 07:35:13 PDT 2016
On 2016-05-04 10:27, Rob Landley wrote:
> The last-gplv2 toolchains have broken on 3 different architectures
> recently, all due to kernel changes that didn't regression test on
> There's been a GPLv3 toolchain submission here, which I admit is half
> what's discouraging me from working on aboriginal linux anymore.
> effort into my old toolchain... people don't want to use it so what's
> the point?
For better or worse, Codethink sponsored the GPLv3 toolchain work.
Please do not be discouraged. Note that:
- we are very interested in Aboriginal - it's great work!
- we (as well as some of our customers) recognise the need to maintain
permissively licensed, boot-strappable toolchain software over the long
- we would have preferred to build on your established GPLv2 approach,
but as you say, various upstreams are now breaking... which will
ultimately close that path.
> Rich is doing a new GPLv3 toolchain at
> https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross make and good luck with that
> But I will never distribute a binary GPLv3 program in a hobbyist
> context. If a corporation wants to stand up and take the legal
> and pay me to do it on their behalf as an employee so THEY are the
> getting sued, fine. But I'm not doing it as me ever. (Keep in mind I
> outwaited AOL and Windows, and am in the process of outwaiting
> The sun only has so much hydrogen, I am waiting for GPLv3 to go away
> working to build public domain alternatives to it.)
> Defending GPLv2 against GPLv3 was always a stopgap measure, the
> fix is for GPL to go away entirely and be replaced by licensing
> to the public domain. (I.E. the FSF probably outlive Richard
> and the best thing I can do is work towards obsoleting them.)
> I've been playing a little with LLVM, maybe I should do more of that,
> but it's a giant hairball nightmare written in C++ and I don't
> WANT to have anything to do with it. The only advantage is it's not
> FSF-maintained GPLv3 crap.
> I still need to use this to test toybox, but to be honest I can stay
> linux 4.3 for years doing that. Nobody makes binary native
> but maybe I can make puppy eyes at Rich about that, and if not...
> got my old ones building under my old kernel and when I'm ready to
> the AOSP can of worms they build under LLVM anyway.
> Bootstrapping debian would be nice, but I'm not sure anybody under
> age of 40 still cares about non-Android Linux? Heck, even most of the
> android developers are using windows and mac hosts. No seriously,
> there's numbers:
I'm not sure winning the popularity contests matters much, really :)
In any case, let's avoid monoculture and encourage diversity.
> Sigh. I _can_ fix everything that's currently wrong with the old
> toolchains (although it's probably a couple weeks of debugging,
> just what I _know_ about). Or I could ask Rich to do native
> make a really small shell script to build and paclage a toybox
> userspace, and move on with my life. I'm sticking on Ubuntu 14.04
> non-systemd LTS version) until it's end of lifed, which gives me a
> deadline to get a working self-hosting android workstation working...
> Anybody else care to venture an opinion?
For gcc+binutils, the tide seems to be against us.
While android is fine for various scenarios, we'd prefer to support a
route with a broader sponsor base.
Would you be interested in collaboration to move forward with
Aboriginal on all possible architectures using clang + musl?
More information about the Aboriginal