On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:21:54AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: > 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.
the context of the discussion is placing the burden on the person asking for information. Rather than give the requested information, the so-called maintainer is spending most of his words dismissing the request. If I were asking for information (not likely for this set of people - too often I've observed it done this way over the past ten years), I'd have to consider his response rude. -- Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
