Remaining host configuration fragments

[Paul Koning]

>>>>> "DJ" == DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

 >> Likewise any OS that hasn't had a new release in 5 years.  These
 >> are likely to not be worthwhile to preserve.

 DJ> DJGPP runs on ms-dos.  There hasn't been a release for that in,
 DJ> what, decades?  It still gets a thousand new users a day.

 DJ> IMHO a platform should be deprecated iff it meets all these:

 DJ> 1. Platform not supported by manufacturer for N years 2. No
 DJ> volunteers to maintain the port 3. Known not to function for the
 DJ> last N minor releases (2.95, 3.0, 3.1) 4. Nobody notices #3 :-)

I like that approach.

For one thing, it accommodates oddball platforms.  To pick one
example, it would allow pdp11 to continue to exist as a target if
someone will maintain it.  (I don't know if Mike G. still considers
himself to be the one; if not, I'm thinking that perhaps I might
volunteer.)  As someone else mentioned, there's "retrocomputing" and
there are hobbyists that use surprising platforms; neither of those is
mainstream, and neither warrants a lot of work, but if the volunteers
are there, it's hard to argue why the stuff should be deleted.

      paul