<zimoun>well, at some points, it appears to me hard to speak about GNU because it is not well-defined… it is a “vague“ project as some federation of several projects agreeing more or less on some common aims, but applying different policies.
<zimoun>GNU Assembly appears to me as a way to give more structure of this federation.
<rekado>the shepherd got a happy ending, and it’s nice that we use mcron, but overall I feel that the lack of response from other GNU packages has been rather cold.
<rekado>‘structure’, sure, but without aims and processes it’s got nowhere to go
<rekado>is the GNU Assembly going to approve new GNU packages?
<rekado>is it ever going to be in actual defiance of the rms-GNU?
<zimoun>I do not know. Well, I never thought about this. :-) From my perspective, all the layers of GNU history are too heavy.
<zimoun>So it is really hard to have a coherence and collaboration between all the already existing parts.
<zimoun>GCC is a big question. Couple of Guix Days ago, Mark was there and what I remember is: if RedHat changes their mind and stop their support, GCC will be dead… and that support switch could be happen.
<drakonis>gcc is largely kept alive by the linux kernel's continued existence
<drakonis>but the most recent gcc updates have been quite significant improvements
<drakonis>perhaps the inclusion of rust support in gcc will help