[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Portability of preprocessor directives

From: Earnie Boyd
Subject: Re: Portability of preprocessor directives
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:21:54 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:58:59PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:

If the OS isn't supported by the vendor is it really necessary for new releases of the tool to support such a beast. If a hobbyist is in need of an older release, so be it, let the hobbyinsts help each other. Otherwise, there is this term known as ``porting'' that comes to mind.

If you make it known that you need testing for a new release and testing doesn't happen for the hobbyist, then whose problem is it, yours, I think not. Let the hobbyist test when testing is needed or else remove support for the untested in the next release from the current.

I assume you're talking about Redhat, for instance.
Have to be fair, you know.

No, my reference wasn't to any particular vendor. The comments came from references to HP UX version 9.x but I generalized even more.

I would like to emphasize though, if the hobbyist isn't willing to test for new releases using his hobby environment then support for that environment should be removed. A package maintainer doesn't have enough cycles to maintain code that no one uses and doesn't have enough cycles to do the testing himself. So, if no one is testing then the maintainer can assume that no one is using that environment and drop support for it altogether.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]