[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Document reasonable portability targets
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Document reasonable portability targets |
Date: |
Tue, 17 May 2011 00:19:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Paul Eggert wrote on 2011-01-29 in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-01/msg00545.html>:
> The change to gnulib.texi looks good, but my kneejerk reaction to the
> proposed change to gnulib-intro.texi is that although much of what's
> proposed is useful, it divides software into categories pretty strictly
> and this strictness might cause confusion and problems.
> ... Overally I suspect it'd be better to keep support levels a little
> fuzzy, and not to try to define terms like "essential" and "minor".
OK, I can simplify these categories by indicating how often we test on
these platforms: frequently, occasionally, rarely.
> Instead, how about something like the following:
The question your text is answering is: "As a Gnulib developer,
which priorities should I have?" My text answered the question
"As a Gnulib user, what amount of portability can I expect?"
I think everyone is free to set his priorities himself; there's no point
in writing this down here.
> Gnulib works on a number of platforms that we call the "reasonable
> portability targets".
>
> GNU platforms, such as glibc, have the highest priority.
This is not universally true. We invest more in Solaris portability
than in GNU/Hurd porting.
> Next come
> other free-software platforms, such as Cygwin and FreeBSD. Then come
> proprietary platforms that fit well in the Unix/POSIX tradition
It's not really the free vs. non-free here. We put more effort into the mingw
port than into NetBSD and Haiku ports - although NetBSD and Haiku are free.
And whether Cygwin counts as a "free software platform" or not - I don't
want to discuss this; it would be a fight about words.
> as MacOS X and Solaris. Then other proprietary platforms that are a bit
> of a stretch, such as mingw. And last comes proprietary platforms
> that would be so much of a distraction to support that Gnulib
> deliberately does not support them, such as MS-DOS.
This paragraph does not really say why MSDOS is a "distraction" whereas
mingw isn't.
The real criteria are the number of users of these platforms and the
amount of cooperation we get from their supporters. I think this should
be mentioned.
> However,
> already-existing Gnulib code for now-obsolete platform versions is
> typically left in place unless it would significantly impede
> maintenance on modern platforms.
Good point, this ought to be mentioned.
> The exact set of platforms and platform versions, and their level of
> support, is open to judgment and depends on how much work developers
> are willing and able to contribute. Volunteers to help support
> other platforms are welcome, but should keep in mind that Gnulib's
> goal is to support production applications, not computer museum
> pieces or software research projects.
Yes, good point.
Bruno
--
In memoriam The victims of the Zaklopača massacre
<http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/interview-with-nihada-hodzic-survivor-of-the-zaklopaca-massacre/>
- Re: Document reasonable portability targets,
Bruno Haible <=