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. This is basically what eComStation and ArcaOS must do. I doubt you get their development from IBM's web or download servers. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM, KO Myung-Hun <kom...@gmail.com> 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 > > >
