Rocky Bernstein wrote: > 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. >
The fact that libcdio developers except me cannot support OS/2 has not changed at all. This cannot be the reason why OS/2 codes should be forked. In addition, the fact that I willing to test functionality and submit patches if needed has not been changed at all. Why do OS/2 codes should be forked ? > This is basically what eComStation and ArcaOS must do. I doubt you get > their development from IBM's web or download servers. > I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean. > 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 >> >> >> > -- 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