Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.
I presume that there are patches to the vanilla gcc from the FSF to get this to build - you should make them available.
Even if he uses no patches, source code is supposed to be available from the same site.
Anyway, I would love to see some rationale what makes this project necessary, in what way it is going to be different from mingw (for gcc etc), or gnuwin32 (for random libraries etc).
> Even if he uses no patches, source code is supposed
> to be available from the same site.
AIUI, the actual requirement of the GPL is that his binary distribution must be accompanied by an *offer* to provide source. Of course, he must also be prepared to honour that offer, in response to my formal request for him to provide it; the easiest way to ensure that is to simply post the source tarballs alongside the binaries, on his project distribution site.
In any case, I see no such offer posted anywhere on the site. This is technically a violation of the GPL, rendering this distribution unlawful, and in contravention of SourceForge hosting regulations. Please consider this as a formal request for full source of all distributed GPL binary files. It is not my intention to make trouble for the administrator of this project; however, if these are not posted within a reasonable time, say in the next fourteen days, then I shall consider it my bounden duty to acquaint the SourceForge Regulators, and the Free Software Foundation, of this GPL violation.
> Anyway, I would love to see some rationale what makes this
> project necessary, in what way it is going to be different
> from mingw (for gcc etc), or gnuwin32 (for random libraries etc).
I would also like to see this rationale explained; I really cannot see where this project is going. Ok, his current GCC version is at version 4.x, whereas MinGW continues to offer only 3.4.5. However, Danny Smith, who is both the Release Manager for MinGW's GCC, and an accredited maintainer for the Win32 branch of official GCC sources, is on record as having stated that GCC 4.x is not yet sufficiently stable to even countenance a MinGW release; this will not be forthcoming, until there is a significant reduction in the number of failing regression tests for the 4.x Win32 codebase.
Given Danny's statement, I would question just how stable this 4.x distribution really is; I can only assume that it is susceptible to all of the regression failures, which are currently holding up a 4.x release from MinGW. If the maintainer of this project is really committed to providing quality state-of-the-art GCC binaries, would his energies not be better directed to co-operation with the MinGW Project, in working towards a resolution of those regression failures, instead of rushing headlong into maintaining his own release, which I suspect will turn out to be unstable, and difficult for him to support on his own? As a MinGW Project Administrator, I would be perfectly willing to offer him an opportunity to prove his worth as a MinGW Project Member, should he choose to offer his services: http://www.mingw.org/MinGWiki/index.php/JoinTheDevelopersList
Should the administrator of this project choose not to accept my invitation, then I would ask him to consider how he intends to *support* his own distribution; I see no mailing lists associated with this project, and little evidence of his presence on this forum. Should his GCC release prove to be as unstable as I suspect it may be, it is likely to attract a considerable volume of support requests; should the maintainer prove unable to address those, his project will quickly lose momentum, and it is not my desire to see that happen, even though I administer what is technically a competing project.
MinGW Project Administrator
Checking back on the distribution site, today, I now notice this, (but still no follow up in this forum):
> Finding for GCC for Windows? Latest binaries are available here
> # This is a clean build of gcc - no patches or other modifications were used
> # Check out GCC official page for news, faq, mailing lists and source code
Unfortunately, this DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GPL. You need to READ AND UNDERSTAND the GPL. Consult the GPL FAQ, to improve your understanding; in particular: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCSourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
I have grave doubts for the future of this project. On the one hand, the administrator doesn't bother to respond to questions on his own forum; users are going to lose interest, and look elsewhere. Furthermore, the project is ILLEGALLY distributing BINARY ONLY copies of GPLed code, WITHOUT the REQUIRED ACCOMPANYING SOURCE. Not only is this a clear violation of the GPL, but that violation also puts it in contravention of the SourceForge hosting rules; this is sure to get the project shut down, sooner rather than later. I gave you fourteen days grace, to remedy this; seven of those have already elapsed, with no evidence of suitable action being taken. The clock is ticking; be assured that I *will* escalate this, if you continue to ignore the issue beyond the grace period you have already been given. (This is not because I WANT to make trouble for you, but, as a GNU contributor, and committed proponent of the GPL, I am not prepared to allow this violation to continue unchecked).
At First thanks for the gcc 4.1.2 Build.
Second: i'Äm very interesitn on the Build enviroment.
How is this binary be build.
(I hope your Info: using the vanilla Source is correect.)
The GPL Faq says: you must not put the Source on your HP, if you have an agreement with gnu.org that they host the source,
for the time you provide the binaries.
I think this is given.
But I tried it, and can't build the vanilla Source for Win32....
Can You help me ?
Ok, i delete your Binaries and Using