From: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>
> Let me get this straight. We're arguing for keeping some hacks in the
> source code to support OpenVMS on Alpha? (i.e., a dead OS running on
> a dead architecture?)
Define "dead". The vendor (HP) claims still to support it:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/index.html
http://www.hp.com/go/openvms/roadmap
I'm currently obsolete, and I expect to cease functioning entirely in
the not-too-distant future, but I would not call myself "dead" quite
yet.
But, yes, some of us are arguing for that. And why not? As I asked
a while ago:
[...] Does this code cause any performance or other portability
problems? Is the comment too confusing? Does this (rather small,
I thought) "bunch of hacks" fluff up the source code excessively?
If _you_ don't need it, then it's not worth keeping? [...]
It's not my program, and its developers can do what they want. I see
some real cost and no great benefit from removing this particular
work-around, but I'm old and set in my ways, and I tend to think that
maintaining support for VMS is not a complete waste of time. But what
do I know?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-info
382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818
Saint Paul MN 55105-2547
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [email protected]
Automated List Manager [email protected]
