Re: Remaining host configuration fragments

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

>     3. Known not to function for the last N minor releases (2.95, 3.0, 3.1)
>     4. Nobody notices #3 :-)
> 
> Of course, if #4 is true, the first part of #3 can't be, but basically
> I agree with a very strict criteria like this.

In this case, if Zack now determines that irix5 hasn't worked since
before 2.95, I think 3 and 4 would be satisfied.  Perhaps #4 should
read "noticed" instead of "notices" ;-)

#3 is void if, say, it worked as recently as two releases ago.
#4 is void if, say, people have complained about it not working.

> And even then, I don't recommend actually *removing* the files, just
> not documenting it as a supported port.  There is great historical value
> in these files and people shouldn't have to find old releases to see them.

Again, I like the idea of adding a syntaxically erroneous comment to
such files.  It keeps the history, encourages volunteerism, sets
proper expectations, yet prevents the platform from being used while
it is in a known unusable state.