Rocky Bernstein 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. >
Hmm... It will take a long time. Oversea snail mail is too slow. > 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. > Thanks for the clarification. I'll try. > 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. Must ? And how do I connect to other servers ? > > 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 >> >> >> > -- 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