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
