From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15803 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2004 16:49:38 -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 15362 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2004 16:49:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Dec 2004 16:49:14 -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 iBEGnETD011659 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:49:14 -0500 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iBEGnAr07155; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:49:11 -0500 To: Christopher Faylor Cc: rda@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32 References: <20041208131241.08346412.kevinb@redhat.com> <20041213203220.GC27768@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20041213203220.GC27768@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor writes: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:12:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > >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). > > 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.