Re: Building Octave without xcode

[Ben Abbott]

On Dec 25, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> 2010/12/25 Michael D. Godfrey <address@hidden>:
>> On 12/25/10 10:17 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is it impossible to build Octave without Xcode? Ben just pushed a
>>> patch (11410:2df163be223e) for README.MacOS which suggests installing
>>> Xcode in order to build Octave. This breaks with the GNU coding
>>> standards:
>>> 
>>>     http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html
>>> 
>> The strict interpretation of this does not allow building Octave under
>> MAC OSX at all.
> 
> No, I don't think this is true. The above documentation makes explicit
> exception for system libraries and the OS itself, since it's stuff
> that's already installed and well-known.
> 
>> So, I would say that it is OK to use Apple gcc, X11, Xcode, or
>> anything else that comes on the Apple install disk.
> 
> Xcode and gcc are way way different, and they don't even belong in the
> same sentence, even if apparently they belong in the same disk... One
> is a free compiler. Another is a proprietary IDE that wants to track
> you and silence you.
> 
> Xcode has a very hostile license. Although there is a version on the
> install disk, it's often outdated, and Apple encourages you to
> register on their website. Last time I had to compile Mac OS X
> binaries, it was impossible to do so with the Xcode provided on the
> install disk, and the updated Xcode version provided in their website
> involves agreeing to what, if I recall correctly, is essentially an
> NDA, plus giving Apple tracking information about you.
> 
> The fact that Xcode isn't installed by default and is possibly not
> even known except to developers further points out it might not fall
> under the exemptions listed in the GNU coding standards: "people who
> don’t already use the proprietary program will not see anything likely
> to lead them to take an interest in it." Mentioning that you need to
> install Xcode in order to compile Octave seems to me like telling
> people to use this bit of non-free code that they wouldn't have
> otherwise known about. Bear in mind that many modern Octave users are
> baffled by the idea that you can compile software yourself.
> 
> 2010/12/25 Ben Abbott <address@hidden>:
>> On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> 
>>> Is it impossible to build Octave without Xcode?
> 
>> Xcode is essentially an IDE which uses a modified version of gcc +
>> other open-source tools.
> 
> Ben... calling gcc "open source"? :-(

Does gcc not fit the definition of open source?

        
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open_Source_Definition 

>> If there are any licenses, or tools, that look problematic, please
>> bring them up so that we can look into the details further.
> 
> None of those tools are problematic (well, I've never seen the Sen:te
> license before, but that's besides the point). It's Xcode itself.

My understanding is that all the tools needed have licenses which have been 
deemed permissible by GNU.

> Can't the necessary tools all be gotten from Fink or Macports?

Both Fink and MacPorts require that Xcode be installed.

Ben