Obsolete configurations, round 3

Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.

	a29k-*-*
	arm-*-riscix*
	c*-convex-*
	elxsi-*-*
	i?86-*-aix*
	i?86-*-bsd*
	i?86-*-chorusos*
	i?86-*-dgux*
	i?86-*-freebsd1.*
	i?86-*-isc*
	i?86-*-linux*oldld*
	i?86-*-osf1*
	i?86-*-osfrose*
	i?86-*-rtemscoff*             
	i?86-*-sunos*
	i?86-go32-rtems*
	i?86-next-*
	i?86-sequent-bsd*
	i?86-sequent-ptx[12]*
	i?86-sequent-sysv3*
	m68[k0]*-*-lynxos*
	m68[k0]*-*-rtemscoff*
	m68[k0]*-*-sysv3*
	m68[k0]*-altos-*
	m68[k0]*-apollo-*
	m68[k0]*-apple-*
	m68[k0]*-bull-*
	m68[k0]*-convergent-*
	m68[k0]*-isi-*
	m68[k0]*-next-*
	m68[k0]*-sony-*
	ns32k-encore-*
	ns32k-merlin-*
	ns32k-pc532-*
	ns32k-sequent-*
	ns32k-tek6[12]00-*
	sparc-*-rtemsaout*

Speak up if you want one of these kept.

For further suggestions, I would like to look mostly at entire machine
architectures that could be dropped.  Possible candidates for this are

	1750a		currently doesn't build on mainline due to
			lack of support for idiosyncratic floating
			point format
	clipper		intergraph's still around, but no port
			activity since 2.95
	d30v		rumor has it this never taped out
	i370		superseded by s390?
	i860		dead since early 90s, IIRC
	m88k		same situation as ns32k - some netbsd/openbsd
			port activity, all commercial support abandoned
	pj		abandoned by sun?
	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so
	we32k		western electric went out of business

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> I would like to look mostly at entire machine architectures that
> could be dropped [from GCC].  Possible candidates for this are:
>       ...
> 	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so

http://www.openbsd.org/romp.html
says that a port is being organized, but it seems that was written in
1998, and the mailing list archive doesn't show much recent activity.

-- 
Lars Brinkhoff          http://lars.nocrew.org/     Linux, GCC, PDP-10,
Brinkhoff Consulting    http://www.brinkhoff.se/    HTTP programming

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > I would like to look mostly at entire machine architectures that
> > could be dropped [from GCC].  Possible candidates for this are:
> >       ...
> > 	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so
> 
> http://www.openbsd.org/romp.html
> says that a port is being organized, but it seems that was written in
> 1998, and the mailing list archive doesn't show much recent activity.

I know; I used to have one of those and follow the mailing list.  It
never got off the ground, as far as I could tell.  If someone wants to
speak up for that port, fine; otherwise, I don't see any value in
keeping it around.

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Jim Mercer]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:24:54AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> > Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > > I would like to look mostly at entire machine architectures that
> > > could be dropped [from GCC].  Possible candidates for this are:
> > >       ...
> > > 	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so
> > 
> > http://www.openbsd.org/romp.html
> > says that a port is being organized, but it seems that was written in
> > 1998, and the mailing list archive doesn't show much recent activity.
> 
> I know; I used to have one of those and follow the mailing list.  It
> never got off the ground, as far as I could tell.  If someone wants to
> speak up for that port, fine; otherwise, I don't see any value in
> keeping it around.

but, but, but!

what am i to do with my collection of RT/romp gear if there is no compiler
for it?

8^)

thus far i don't see anyone making any noise.
(although i'm in no way authorative for the ROMP community)

-- 
[ Jim Mercer        jim@reptiles.org         +1 416 410-5633 ]
[          I want to live forever, or die trying.            ]

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[jpd]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 03:05:35PM -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:24:54AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> > > Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > > > I would like to look mostly at entire machine architectures that
> > > > could be dropped [from GCC].  Possible candidates for this are:

What's the deal with dropping ports from gcc, btw?

> > > >       ...
> > > > 	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so
> > > 
> > > http://www.openbsd.org/romp.html
> > > says that a port is being organized, but it seems that was written in
> > > 1998, and the mailing list archive doesn't show much recent activity.
> > 
> > I know; I used to have one of those and follow the mailing list.  It
> > never got off the ground, as far as I could tell.  If someone wants to
> > speak up for that port, fine; otherwise, I don't see any value in
> > keeping it around.

The OpenBSD/romp port never saw light, AFAICT, but there is/was some
4.4BSD work going on.

> but, but, but!
> 
> what am i to do with my collection of RT/romp gear if there is no compiler
> for it?
 
Even tho I don't own a romp anymore, I can think of a few reasons to
keep a compiler for it. One is, ofcourse, historical interrest: It
is AFAIK the first risc to run un*x.

> thus far i don't see anyone making any noise.

'ey, if there's one message in a week people start to wonder how
busy the list has become. I wouln't be surprised if you lot just
caused a few heart attacks. :-)

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Miod Vallat]

> The OpenBSD/romp port never saw light, AFAICT, but there is/was some
> 4.4BSD work going on.

Actually, there is some OpenBSD/romp work slowly going on, but we have
better use for our spare time...

If romp support is dropped from gcc, I guess it would not be too hard to
put it back if OpenBSD/romp becomes a reality.

Miod

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:09:52PM +0200, jpd@dsb.tudelft.nl wrote:
> 
> What's the deal with dropping ports from gcc, btw?

By dropping ports which no one cares about anymore, we reduce our
maintenance burden.  Machine-independent changes don't have to worry
about the quirks of obsolete hardware or operating systems.

> Even tho I don't own a romp anymore, I can think of a few reasons to
> keep a compiler for it. One is, ofcourse, historical interrest: It
> is AFAIK the first risc to run un*x.

I don't think that historical interest is sufficient reason to keep
code around, when it is unused and adds complexity to the compiler
merely by existing.

However, I said earlier that we were only going to drop ports with no
constituents at all in this round, so romp-*-openbsd stays.  (Do you
have any objection to ditching romp-*-aos and romp-*-mach?)

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[jpd]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
[snip]
> 
> However, I said earlier that we were only going to drop ports with no
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But not on romp@openbsd.org, hence the question. :-)

> constituents at all in this round, so romp-*-openbsd stays.  (Do you
> have any objection to ditching romp-*-aos and romp-*-mach?)

As I suspect romp-*-aos would also be used for 4.4BSD it might be
`handy' to have gcc for it. However, since it is rather old itself
(and you're not very fond of historical intrerest :-) maybe 4.4BSD
(and AOS) can make-do with an older gcc. I've never even seen
romp-*-mach, so I can't comment on that.

This is just me speaking. (But since I'm about the only one, it seems,
it almost feels like being a spokesperson.)

-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Jason R Thorpe]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:24:54AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:

 > I know; I used to have one of those and follow the mailing list.  It
 > never got off the ground, as far as I could tell.  If someone wants to
 > speak up for that port, fine; otherwise, I don't see any value in
 > keeping it around.

..and, hey, there's always the Attic...

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Peter A. Castro]

On 16 Apr 2002, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:

> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > I would like to look mostly at entire machine architectures that
> > could be dropped [from GCC].  Possible candidates for this are:
> >       ...
> > 	romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so
> 
> http://www.openbsd.org/romp.html
> says that a port is being organized, but it seems that was written in
> 1998, and the mailing list archive doesn't show much recent activity.

Please don't drop ROMP.  I'm still working on updates to GCC for ROMP in
prep for some porting work I'm doing (yes, some of still use the really
old hardware).

-- 
Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
	"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Richard Henderson]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:04:45AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 	i370		superseded by s390?

s390 currently only works on linux, so i370 would still
be used for mvs.  It'd be nice to fold whatever OS bits
into the new backend, but I certainly don't want to do 
the work.

> 	pj		abandoned by sun?

No, Sun had nothing to do with this -- it is sac's handiwork.
Poke him and see if he wants to actively maintain the thing,
otherwise kill it.

More for the list:

	alpha*-*-osf[123]*

		I expect everyone to be running osf[45].


r~

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Joel Sherrill]

Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:04:45AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >       i370            superseded by s390?
> 
> s390 currently only works on linux, so i370 would still
> be used for mvs.  It'd be nice to fold whatever OS bits
> into the new backend, but I certainly don't want to do
> the work.
> 
> >       pj              abandoned by sun?
> 
> No, Sun had nothing to do with this -- it is sac's handiwork.
> Poke him and see if he wants to actively maintain the thing,
> otherwise kill it.
> 
> More for the list:
> 
>         alpha*-*-osf[123]*
> 
>                 I expect everyone to be running osf[45].

What about elxsi-*-* and ns32k*-*-*?

A quick search of ChangeLogs only shows "likewise" type changes
for the past few years.  

"elsxi -gcc" doesn't have any real hits on google so I have to
wonder about it.

Is the ns32k still available?
 
> r~

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:39:41PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> What about elxsi-*-* and ns32k*-*-*?

elxsi's already on my list.  ns32k appears to still have interested
users in the Net/OpenBSD community so we're keeping it.  We are
dumping all the other ns32k targets though.

Hmm, m88k's in the same boat.  These look dead:

	m88k-dg-*
	m88k-dolphin-*
	m88k-tektronix-*
	m88k-*-luna*
	m88k-*-sysv3*
	m88k-*-coff*	(?)

these should probably be kept:

	m88k-*-aout*
	m88k-*-openbsd*
	m88k-*-sysv4*  (as a basis for ELF ports)

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Marc Espie]

In article <20020416180549.GH22450@codesourcery.com> you write:
To keep:
>	m88k-*-openbsd*

Yes please.

Even though I haven't had time to look at gcc 3.1
and merge our local changes, all the OpenBSD configurations
are still alive.

Some of the ports are not too used, like mips. 
Romp is half a ghost but not quite, but mvme88k still runs.


These days, OpenBSD exists on:
m68k, sparc, sparc64, i386, powerpc, vax, alpha.

The m88k port and the mips port are mostly alive (they were
working at some time in the not so distant past, and some people
are playing with it). hppa is coming together (I think it's
past single-boot on quite a few makes).

Romp might be some time in the future, who knows ?

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Gerald Pfeifer]

BTW, before actually removing some configurations we should send
something to gcc-announce and wait for input from there.

(IIRC that's what has been decided some time ago, even though I
don't remember details...)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Jason R Thorpe]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 12:39:41PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:

 > Is the ns32k still available?

There is still an active NetBSD port to the ns32k.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:21:41AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:04:45AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > 	i370		superseded by s390?
> 
> s390 currently only works on linux, so i370 would still
> be used for mvs.

Right.

> > 	pj		abandoned by sun?
> 
> No, Sun had nothing to do with this -- it is sac's handiwork.

sac == Steve Chamberlain <sac@transmeta.com> ?

> 	alpha*-*-osf[123]*

Added.

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[David S. Miller]

   From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
   Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:23:34 -0700

   On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 10:21:41AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
   > > 	pj		abandoned by sun?
   > 
   > No, Sun had nothing to do with this -- it is sac's handiwork.
   
   sac == Steve Chamberlain <sac@transmeta.com> ?

Yes.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:

Zack> i370		superseded by s390?

	Not superceded.  s390 is the SVR4/ELF/GNU/Linux port.  i370 is the
MVS aka OS/390 aka z/OS port.  The two should be merged, but i370 cannot
be dropped until that port's functionality is subsumed by s390 port.

Zack> i860		dead since early 90s, IIRC

	Isn't this still used in some embedded products?

Zack> romp		eol-ed in 1992 or so

	*sniffle*

David

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:38:02PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:
> 
> Zack> i860		dead since early 90s, IIRC
> 
> 	Isn't this still used in some embedded products?

I believe that's i960.

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Richard Henderson]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:25:16AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I believe that's i960.

Yep.  The i960 zombie still lurks in the telecom arena;
as far as I know the i860 has been staked.


r~

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[law]

In message <20020416125703.A21390@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
 > On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 11:25:16AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
 > > I believe that's i960.
 > 
 > Yep.  The i960 zombie still lurks in the telecom arena;
 > as far as I know the i860 has been staked.
Yup.  i960 isn't totally dead yet -- Red Hat still has customers who use them.

jeff

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Jason R Thorpe]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:38:02PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:

 > Zack> i860		dead since early 90s, IIRC
 > 
 > 	Isn't this still used in some embedded products?

Dunno about embedded systems, but the herds of Paragon users will sure be
upset if this goes  :-)

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Eric Christopher]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.

And I'd like to add:

mips-sni-sysv4
mips-sgi-irix4loser
mips-sgi-irix4
mips-sgi-irix[3..]
mips-dec-osfrose
mips-dec-osf
mips-dec-bsd
mips-sony-bsd* | mips-sony-newsos*
mips-sony-sysv
mips-tandem-sysv4
mips-*-ultrix* | mips-dec-mach3
mips-*-riscos[56789]bsd*
mips-*-bsd* | mips-*-riscosbsd* | mips-*-riscos[1234]bsd*
mips-*-riscos[56789]sysv4*
mips-*-sysv4* | mips-*-riscos[1234]sysv4* | mips-*-riscossysv4
mips-*-riscos[56789]sysv*
mips-*-sysv* | mips-*-riscos*sysv
mips-*-riscos[56789]*
mips64orionel-*-elf*
mips64orion-*-elf*
mips64orion-*-rtems*

I'd like to get rid of:

mips-ecoff
mips-sgi-irix5
mips-sgi-irix5cross64

But I expect I'll get a lot of pushback on these. Even though sgi has
definitely EOL irix5. Years ago.

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 08:32:42PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> > Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.
> 
> And I'd like to add:

Thanks.  I simplified your list a bit:

	mips-sgi-irix[1234]*
	mips-dec-*
	mips-sony-*
	mips-tandem-*
	mips-*-ultrix*
	mips-*-riscos*
	mips-*-bsd*
	mips-*-sysv*
	mips64orion*-*-*

with -sni-sysv4 whitelisted.  In the interest of avoiding controversy
in this cycle, let's leave that and irix5 for now.

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Eric Christopher]

> 
> with -sni-sysv4 whitelisted.  In the interest of avoiding controversy
> in this cycle, let's leave that and irix5 for now.

OK. Thanks.

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Joel Sherrill]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 08:32:42PM -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > > Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.
> >
> > And I'd like to add:
> 
> Thanks.  I simplified your list a bit:
> 
>         mips-sgi-irix[1234]*
>         mips-dec-*
>         mips-sony-*
>         mips-tandem-*
>         mips-*-ultrix*
>         mips-*-riscos*
>         mips-*-bsd*
>         mips-*-sysv*
>         mips64orion*-*-*
> 
> with -sni-sysv4 whitelisted.  In the interest of avoiding controversy
> in this cycle, let's leave that and irix5 for now.

mips64orion*-*-rtems* still has users and I still build/run/report
test results on it on a regularly basis.  In fact, see this
test result from 16 April 2002:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00587.html

> zw

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Eric Christopher]

> 
> mips64orion*-*-rtems* still has users and I still build/run/report
> test results on it on a regularly basis.  In fact, see this
> test result from 16 April 2002:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00587.html

Cool. As long as someone still cares about it and looks at it on a
regular basis... :)

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:29:31PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> mips64orion*-*-rtems* still has users and I still build/run/report
> test results on it on a regularly basis.  In fact, see this
> test result from 16 April 2002:

In that case it doesn't make much sense to drop the other orion
targets either.  Removed from list.

zw

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Richard Kenner]

	a29k-*-*

I can't make a very strong argument for keeping this, but a weak one is
that it's a good example of a nearly "pure" RISC port.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Richard Kenner]

   Even tho I don't own a romp anymore, I can think of a few reasons to
   keep a compiler for it. One is, ofcourse, historical interrest: It
   is AFAIK the first risc to run un*x.

It is also the port that drove the features that distinguished between
GCC 1 and GCC 2.

RE: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Dana, Eric]

Eric,

   My company is using Sinix:

      mips-sni-sysv4

--Eric Dana--


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo@redhat.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:33 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3


On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.

And I'd like to add:

mips-sni-sysv4
mips-sgi-irix4loser
mips-sgi-irix4
mips-sgi-irix[3..]
mips-dec-osfrose
mips-dec-osf
mips-dec-bsd
mips-sony-bsd* | mips-sony-newsos*
mips-sony-sysv
mips-tandem-sysv4
mips-*-ultrix* | mips-dec-mach3
mips-*-riscos[56789]bsd*
mips-*-bsd* | mips-*-riscosbsd* | mips-*-riscos[1234]bsd*
mips-*-riscos[56789]sysv4*
mips-*-sysv4* | mips-*-riscos[1234]sysv4* | mips-*-riscossysv4
mips-*-riscos[56789]sysv*
mips-*-sysv* | mips-*-riscos*sysv
mips-*-riscos[56789]*
mips64orionel-*-elf*
mips64orion-*-elf*
mips64orion-*-rtems*

I'd like to get rid of:

mips-ecoff
mips-sgi-irix5
mips-sgi-irix5cross64

But I expect I'll get a lot of pushback on these. Even though sgi has
definitely EOL irix5. Years ago.

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.

RE: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Eric Christopher]

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 08:02, Dana, Eric wrote:
> Eric,
> 
>    My company is using Sinix:
> 
>       mips-sni-sysv4
> 

Do you track gcc releases/need a new compiler? I have no earthly way of
making sure that this even builds let alone maintain it so someone else
would need to take over that responsibility if we keep the target.

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Andi Kleen]

Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:04:45 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> > Here is my current list of targets to deprecate.
> 
> And I'd like to add:
> 
> mips-sni-sysv4

SINIX/MIPS (or "reliant unix") is still widely used and even new boxes are 
still sold.

> mips-sgi-irix4loser
> mips-sgi-irix4

I at least used to have a irix4 box around. It was the last non bloated
stable irix before the 5.x range :-) 

> mips-sony-bsd* | mips-sony-newsos*

Didn't the FSF have newsos boxes (may be wrong on that though)? 

> mips-*-ultrix* | mips-dec-mach3

i'm pretty sure there are still ultrix boxes around and they are used.



-Andi

Re: Obsolete configurations, round 3

[Eric Christopher]

> 
> i'm pretty sure there are still ultrix boxes around and they are used.

Like most of the ports that I wanted to get rid of, I'm sure that
someone, somewhere has one and is using it. The question is if they
really need that new compiler (my ultrix box as an example can't even
bootstrap gcc - not enough memory), and is it worth the effort to
continue to maintain the port with that sole user who never reports bugs
or tries to compile outside of releases.

I will keep SINIX if they really are still selling the things. I'm
amazed.

zack: can you please remove sinix from the list? thanks.

-eric

-- 
Written using state-of-the-rat
technology.