Proposed targets to deprecate (sigh)

[Joe Buck]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:03:44PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > These CPU targets have no maintainer:
> 
> In the past, we didn't have a policy of requiring a maintainer, so lack 
> of a maintainer does not necessarily mean that a port is unused or 
> unmaintained. 

True, but if we suggest that targets with no maintainer are more likely to
be obsoleted in the future, perhaps we can scare up a volunteer or
two. :-)