Re: "Is it dead yet?"

[Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 09:25:26PM -0600, Robert Lipe wrote:
> There have been a collection of recent patch threads that could get
> paraphrased approximately like:
> 
> Kaveh> Tested by building cc1 configured as an i686-pc-linux-gnu ->
> Kaveh> rosetta-stone-roman_numerals cross compiler.  The code clearly
> Kaveh> doesn't work becuase it won't compile, contains syntax errors,
> Kaveh> and other signs of terminal bit decay.
> 
> Law/RTH> Egad.  Now that's a configuration that isn't built
> Law/RTH> often.  I'm surprised you ran into as few problems as
> Law/RTH> you did.
> 
> For these ports that have clearly not compiled in a long time, is it
> really worth keeping them alive?  I'm not suggesting we drop anything
> we've seen any activity in, but I've watched these lists for a long time
> and don't recall a single problem or success report on, say, clipper-*,
> tahoe-*, pyr-*, or 1750-* in years.  If the code won't compile and
> nobody has even noticed, it sounds like dead wood.

Right before the great stdarg overhaul I remember noticing that there were
two or three ports that didn't support ANSI <stdarg.h>.  Those would be my
first candidates for the chopping block.

zw