>  I do not see what the big deal is. If someone wishes to port gcc 2.6 to 
> the Macintosh, all it requires is a compiler that can build gcc, which 
> there must be already, if there is a UNIX for the Mac already for crying 
> out loud.

The big problem is that a compiler that can build gcc is _not_ all
that it takes.  If you're running A/UX, then you need to get the
various patches to make it work from someplace else (probably
ftp.apple.com, or something like that -- i've not fetched software for
A/UX for years... 8-), apply them, compile (if you're compiler's up to
it), etc.  (Of course, there are probably also binaries available at
the same FTP site, to save you the problem.)

So there's more work to do, if you want to build the compiler under,
say A/UX.  similar for NetBSD -- it won't compile straight out of the
box for NetBSD, because nothing that runs on apple hardware is
tolerated in the configuration scripts.


Now, consider another possibility: somebody with a sparcstation is
trying to build binaries for a mac, or for his friend's mac, or
whatever.  but he can't easily get gcc to set up a cross compilation
environment.  Not because the support would be hard to include, but
rather because someone's ego wouldn't let it be included.


"Intellectual" software freedom (as opposed to the "monetary cost"
type of freedom) involves more than the ability to simply make a copy
of the software for yourself and your friends.  but that's the subject
of another mail message that i've not yet finished writing...  8-)


chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------