public inbox for rda@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RDA on Solaris and Win32
@ 2004-12-08 19:23 Jim Blandy
  2004-12-08 20:13 ` Kevin Buettner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2004-12-08 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rda


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?

In January, I'm going to have some time available to make a web page
for RDA and put together a release.  I don't know if there will be any
public interest in RDA, but if there is, we might find volunteers to
work on the Solaris and Cygwin ports.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32
  2004-12-08 19:23 RDA on Solaris and Win32 Jim Blandy
@ 2004-12-08 20:13 ` Kevin Buettner
  2004-12-13 20:31   ` Christopher Faylor
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2004-12-08 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: rda

On 08 Dec 2004 14:22:18 -0500
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32
  2004-12-08 20:13 ` Kevin Buettner
@ 2004-12-13 20:31   ` Christopher Faylor
  2004-12-14 16:49     ` Jim Blandy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2004-12-13 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rda

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:12:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>On 08 Dec 2004 14:22:18 -0500
>Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> 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).

I thought Corinna Vinschen was maintaining rda for cygwin.

cgf

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32
  2004-12-13 20:31   ` Christopher Faylor
@ 2004-12-14 16:49     ` Jim Blandy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2004-12-14 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christopher Faylor; +Cc: rda

Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:12:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> >On 08 Dec 2004 14:22:18 -0500
> >Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> 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).
> 
> I thought Corinna Vinschen was maintaining rda for cygwin.

Oh!  I'll ask her about it, then.  She's been on vacation, which may
be why she hasn't spoken up.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-14 16:49 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-12-08 19:23 RDA on Solaris and Win32 Jim Blandy
2004-12-08 20:13 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-12-13 20:31   ` Christopher Faylor
2004-12-14 16:49     ` Jim Blandy

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).