On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, KO Myung-Hun <kom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. If you want to be considered a libcdio developer nowadays, you need to fill out an FSF copyright assignment form. Send email to ass...@gnu.org asking for the form. > This cannot be the reason why OS/2 codes should be > forked. It is. Several years ago we talked about providing a server that libcdio developers could log into to test. That never materialized. > In addition, the fact that I willing to test functionality and > submit patches if needed has not been changed at all. > You have not been doing a good job. This patch is several years too late for a platform that no one other than yourself seems to care about. When discussions of libcdio regarding OS/2 come up, you've not been around. See this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/ 2014-06/msg00004.html When discussions around adding the MMC sense command have come up which needs OS support, you've not been around. OS/2 support is currently lacking here. It is incumbent on you to keep up with what's going on and make sure the OS/2 driver tracks changes in the API. > 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. > It means that if you care about libcdio and OS/2, you need to do that in a different repository. > > 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 > > >