Re: [PATCH] Add support for GNU/Hurd in gnat-4.9

[Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>]

Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 11:42:30 +0200, a écrit :
> On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 11:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > 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.

I must have missed an episode then.  The only context I have is

“
That's actually the biggest concern when people submit a new port: they
submit it, get it approved, commit it and then are no longer available
for any maintenance when these files need to be updated/become outdated/
no longer compile or run.
”

Does it mean it is a lack of reviewer/commiter which is pointed out?

> Well dropping patches not upstream is a nop, right?

Yes, sure.

> > > >  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

I fully understand that. What I don't understand is what you said
initially:

“
> > > > > (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 same happens for plain C, C++, etc on outdated architectures.
”

Again, what I understand from your "why not just remove support for that
architecture" is that you propose to remove the Hurd port.  I obviously
guess that it's not what you meant, so I don't understand what you
actually meant.

Samuel