Forgot one other thing. May available a server on the internet an OS/2 box that other libcdio developers can log into to test libcdio code.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Rocky Bernstein <ro...@gnu.org> wrote: > This discussion has gone on too long. > > The default is to drop OS/2 support in this repository. You are more than > welcome to set up another which handles OS/2. > > If you want OS/2 to be reconsidered for continuation inside the libcdio > repository... > > Get the FSF assignment form filled out and have it accepted. > > Fix up/write get_last_session_os2(), get_track_pregap_lba_os2(). In > run_cmd_os2(), record a SCSI sense reply for API call mmc_last_cmd_sense(). > See the gnu_linux.c driver for comparison. > > When that's done. We can discuss further. > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:16 PM, KO Myung-Hun <kom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Rocky Bernstein wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> Thanks for the information >> >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >> Do you mean that only OS/2 server isn't configured ? >> >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >> Why too late ? >> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> >> Although I've submit OS/2 patch at first, I got involved from 2014/07 as >> a responsible person for OS/2 codes. >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/2014-07/msg00012.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. >> > >> >> Right. I didn't read the remaining discussions because I didn't think it >> related to OS/2 at first. However, if I were not participated in those >> discussions due to my misunderstanding despite the fact that you thought >> that OS/2 codes should be modified, then it would have been >> better for you to request me to join the discussion. >> >> And if you thought that such features should have been implemented on >> OS/2 before a new release, you should have requested me to do it >> explicitly even if I missed. >> >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >
