On 2-8-2012 20:23, Bart wrote: > On 8/2/12, Reinier Olislagers <[email protected]> wrote: >> Speaking for myself, after submitting a patch, I really don't want to be >> told that Win9x/ME does things differently and that I should correct my >> patch to incorporate support. > > As long as you do not statically link libraries that are unavailable > on 9x, it's hardly gonna be a problem. > Anyhow, this probably is more a fpc problem, since most of those are > in windows unit etc. No it isn't. Look at the OpenURL patch that was declined by somebody else because of your remarks on failing Win9x behaviour. Nothing to do with linked libraries or FPC.
Is it so strange to get rid of this platform that hasn't been supported for ages? Amateurs like you (and I do appreciate the sport of keeping old hardware/software going - I have an OS/2 2.0 and Win98 VM image on standby and my wife is glad I finally dumped a ton of old PCs) can backport any fixes they want without bothering progress ;) Also, is anybody maintaining GUI software that needs to run on the Win9x architecture? If so, it's either apparently so business critical that they can't upgrade/change, which means they can pay for custom Lazarus development or it's a hobby thing - see argument above. I have the feeling this platform is kept alive and supported just because of 1 single person waging a succesful PR campaign and nobody dares to disagree. Is there anybody else that needs current Lazarus support for the Win9x Windows architecture? Of course, I'm just a (not so) humble contributor and can't shape policy, so I'm just waging a PR campaign of my own. Thanks for listening - at least I got it off my chest, Reinier -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
