Re: [PATCH] Add support for GNU/Hurd in gnat-4.9
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 11:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 11:22:44 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 10:47 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 10:40:37 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > > > What kind of person do you have to be to be accepted, a GNU/Hurd
> > > > > > developer or a GNU/Ada developer having a gnu.org account?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing special, just like for contributing to any opensource project;
> > > > > just someone who checks from times to times (in particular before
> > > > > releases) that the port works fine, and submit patches if needed.
> > > >
> > > > I've been working on the Hurd port of gnat since late 2011 including the
> > > > toughest: bootstrapping, does that count?
> > >
> > > Count for what?
> > >
> > > Opensource is about patches correctness, not people fame.
> > >
> > > If anybody, whoever he is, takes up the work and produces correct
> > > patches, then they'll be applied. It's as simple as this.
> >
> > In this case if long term support can be guaranteed, yes!
>
> I don't understand what you mean.
>
> Guaranteeing long term support *is* about taking up the work of checking
> periodically that the port works fine. If anybody does it, then it's
> fine. If nobody does it, then the port will be dropped. It's as simple
> as this. You're welcome for doing it of course.
I've been doing this since 2012 and I said I could continue doing it,
but that did not seem to be sufficient.
> > > > > > > > (Of course it can at least run on Debian systems if/when accepted.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure, but will it continue working on the long term? That's the concern
> > > > > > > of upstream.
> > > >
> > > > If that happens why not just remove support for that architecture? The
> > > > same happens for plain C, C++, etc on outdated architectures.
> > >
> > > Uh? I'm not sure what you mean here. What I understand is "why not
> > > remove support for GNU/Hurd?" which'd mean dropping your patches.
> >
> > How can they be removed, they are not upstream yet?
>
> I even less understand what you meant then.
Well dropping patches not upstream is a nop, right?
> > > I guess that's not what you want, so I don't know what you meant.
> >
> > If that happens -> means if the port is bitrotting for a long time just
> > remove support upstream. We were talking upstream here, not Debian ...
>
> What support? I really don't undestand what you mean.
Remove support for a language for bitrotting architectures (obsolete
ports) like is done for old Solaris 9 (*-*-solaris2.9)
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-4.9/changes.html
Reply to: