Re: [Libcdio-devel] [PATCH] Remove unnecessary high-memory safe wrapper for DosDevIOCtl() on OS/2

[KO Myung-Hun]

Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, KO Myung-Hun <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>>> You have described why there should be a libcdio for OS/2 but not why it
>> is
>>> a bad idea for libcdio stop development, and more to the point, pass it
>> on
>>> to someone else to be developed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I won't go again into why libcdio developers can't support OS/2. At this
>>> point let's just take it as a fact.
>>>
>>> If you care about continuing development on OS/2, then with my blessing
>>> take the code and make necessary changes you want and share that with
>>> others.
>>>
>>
>> The fact that libcdio developers except me cannot support OS/2 has not
>> changed at all.
> 
> 
> If you want to be considered a libcdio developer nowadays, you need to fill
> out an FSF copyright assignment form.
> Send email to address@hidden asking for the form.
> 

Thanks for the information

> 
>> This cannot be the reason why OS/2 codes should be
>> forked.
> 
> 
> It is.  Several years ago we talked about providing a server that libcdio
> developers could
> log into to test. That never materialized.
> 

Do you mean that only OS/2 server isn't configured ?

> 
>> In addition, the fact that I willing to test functionality and
>> submit patches if needed has not been changed at all.
>>
> 
> You have not been doing a good job. This patch is several years too
> late for a platform that no one other than yourself seems to care about.
> 

Why too late ?

> 
> When discussions of libcdio regarding OS/2 come up, you've not been around.
> See this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/
> 2014-06/msg00004.html
> 

Although I've submit OS/2 patch at first, I got involved from 2014/07 as
a responsible person for OS/2 codes.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/2014-07/msg00012.html

> When discussions around adding the MMC sense command have come up which
> needs OS support, you've not been around.
> OS/2 support is currently lacking here. It is incumbent on you to keep up
> with what's going on and make sure the OS/2 driver tracks
> changes in the API.
> 

Right. I didn't read the remaining discussions because I didn't think it
related to OS/2 at first. However, if I were not participated in those
discussions due to my misunderstanding despite the fact that you thought
that OS/2 codes should be modified, then it would have been
better for you to request me to join the discussion.

And if you thought that such features should have been implemented on
OS/2 before a new release, you should have requested me to do it
explicitly even if I missed.

> 
>> Why do OS/2 codes should be forked ?
> 
> 
>>> This is basically what eComStation and ArcaOS must do. I doubt you get
>>> their development from IBM's web or download servers.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean.
>>
> 
> It means that if you care about libcdio and OS/2, you need to do that in a
> different repository.
> 
> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM, KO Myung-Hun <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>  I didn't have to do any activity for OS/2.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is *exactly *the wrong-minded thinking that  brings us to the
>>>> current
>>>>>  problem. You didn't do activity on OS/2 libcdio, but others (and
>>>> possibly
>>>>> you) did make changes on kLIBC. And when things change in the
>> (preferred)
>>>>> OS environment or in libcdio, someone has to check that things haven't
>>>>> broken. That's why we have the libcdio tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone has to be running those periodically. None of the libcdio
>>>>> developers have a way to easily test this on OS2, so we haven't.  I
>>>> thought
>>>>> it was the understanding that you were going to take on this
>>>> responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's the *only *reason OS/2 support hasn't been dropped
>> altogether
>>>>> before, which in my opinion is the responsible thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> You're right. And I already admitted that it was my mistake to think
>>>> that just build test was enough.
>>>>
>>>>> IBM has said
>>>>> "end of life support" was 2006. Well in 2016 I think we need to say
>> from
>>>>> the libcdio side, that's also officially the case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and No. IBM said so. But, OS/2 is still being supported and sold as
>>>> eComStation(http://www.ecomstation.com/) and
>>>> ArcaOS(https://www.arcanoae.com/).
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean fork ? Or other branch ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean fork. In other words, copy the git repository or work from
>> release
>>>>> tarballs or however you prefer to handle it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I don't think it would be a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because OS/2 does not encounter "end of life support" IBM said, yet. And
>>>> I still willing to submit patches for OS/2 if needed although I missed a
>>>> proper time to send the patch once. In addition, I'll run test programs
>>>> as well as build them. :)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> KO Myung-Hun
>>>>
>>>> Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
>>>> Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
>>>> In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM
>>>>
>>>> Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> KO Myung-Hun
>>
>> Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
>> Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
>> In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM
>>
>> Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
KO Myung-Hun

Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM

Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr