[GSOC] more ideas

[Jonathan M Davis]

> Am 25.03.2011 07:08, schrieb Kagamin:
> > Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> >> I wouldn't think that the GPL would be a problem for build tools. It
> >> (and LGPL) _is_ a problem for libraries, but you're not linking with
> >> tools or generally doing anything with their code. You're just using
> >> them.
> > 
> > Well, if Digital Mars doesn't plan to redistribute them, then ok.
> 
> The Linux version of DMD already uses GCC tools for linking.
> 
> Why shouldn't Digital Mars redistribute GNU tools for linking? I don't
> think the GPL forbids that, as long as the sources of those binaries are
> available somewhere.

It doesn't need to. The Linux install usually already has it, and if it 
doesn't, it's easy to install it. So, it's not exactly onerous to require that 
it be installed (not to mention, you typically want your installed gcc to be 
the same version which everything on your system was built with). So, there's 
no need to redistribute any GNU anything.

The situation isn't as straightforward for Windows though, since MinGW and the 
like are not typically installed (though there are plenty of developers who do 
have it installed). So, requiring MinGW would be kind of questionable.

Not to mention, didn't someone find a linker that can link both COFF and OMF 
files on Windows and mostly works with dmd (IIRC, the debugging symbols don't 
currently work)? That sounds a lot more desirable than dealing with the GNU 
tools on Windows (which already have the whole COFF vs OMF problem).

- Jonathan M Davis