Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

Mark Mitchell
2003-06-10T15:57:41Z

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 02:25, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2003, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > [However, I do think it's odd that the FSF worked so hard to get GCC to
> > come from gcc.gnu.org, but binutils and lots of other GNU stuff still
> > comes from sources.redhat.com.]
>
> But the binutils@gcc.gnu.org alias for the list was set up on 18 Jun 2001
> in response to a request from RMS. (I don't know about GDB, or about the
> FSF position on which domain name is used in documentation. overseers
> likewise has a list alias @gcc.gnu.org.)

That's all well and good, but the basic point certainly remains: we've
worked very hard to make GCC appear to come entirely from a machine
named gcc.gnu.org, and similar work has not been done for GDB, binutils,
glibc, etc. Red Hat domain names and logos appear frequently on those
web pages.

Frankly, I don't think this matters nearly as much as it might have in
the past; the world has gotten a lot more savvy about GNU software and
people don't seem to get confused about some company "owning" it nearly
as often.

I don't object to a policy that gnu.org domains ought to be used even
for transient GCC mailing lists. But then we should be actively trying
to set up {binutils,gdb,glibc}.gnu.org and/or sources.gnu.org; the use
of sources.redhat.com for those projects creates much more potential for
confusion. A first step would be do separate the sources.redhat.com
site into a site for GNU project programs and non-GNU project programs;
GDB would go on the first site, while Cygwin and Red Boot would go on
the other.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com