From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24041 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2004 20:13:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rda-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: rda-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23628 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2004 20:12:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Dec 2004 20:12:48 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB8KClnX020496 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:12:47 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iB8KClr21344 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:12:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-35.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.35]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iB8KClqY027063; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:12:47 -0500 Received: from ironwood.lan (ironwood.lan [192.168.64.8]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id iB8KCfvt021120; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:12:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:13:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Jim Blandy Cc: rda@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32 Message-ID: <20041208131241.08346412.kevinb@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Red Hat X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12cvs146.13 (GTK+ 2.4.13; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 On 08 Dec 2004 14:22:18 -0500 Jim Blandy wrote: > Hmm. It seems that, although RDA includes code for Cygwin and > Solaris, that code is not actually built by default when one > configures the tree in the normal way on those platforms. All you get > is the librda library. > > This means that we can't know if regenerating the auto* files > introduces additional build problems for that platform-specific code > without first making RDA actually build it again. I don't want to > extend the scope of my project to include making the Cygwin and > Solaris native support code build again. But evolving the surrounding > support will inevitably bit-rot that stuff. It's the classic > "unmaintained code" dilemma. > > Ideally, that stuff were made to build again, but limiting ourselves > to actions we can afford to take immediately, what should our policy > be? Here are the options I see, listed in order of decreasing > preference for me: > > a) Declare Cygwin and Solaris native support to be unmaintained in the > README file, but leave the sources in the tree. > > b) Delete the Cygwin and Solaris native support. If someone wants to > resurrect it, it's all in CVS. > > c) Put off upgrading the auto* files until Cygwin and Solaris native > build again and the upgrade can be tested. > > How do other folks feel? I vote for (a). Kevin