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


Reply via email to