Re: RDA on Solaris and Win32

[Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>]

Christopher Faylor <me@cgf.cx> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:12:41PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> >On 08 Dec 2004 14:22:18 -0500
> >Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm.  It seems that, although RDA includes code for Cygwin and
> >> Solaris, that code is not actually built by default when one
> >> configures the tree in the normal way on those platforms.  All you get
> >> is the librda library.
> >> 
> >> This means that we can't know if regenerating the auto* files
> >> introduces additional build problems for that platform-specific code
> >> without first making RDA actually build it again.  I don't want to
> >> extend the scope of my project to include making the Cygwin and
> >> Solaris native support code build again.  But evolving the surrounding
> >> support will inevitably bit-rot that stuff.  It's the classic
> >> "unmaintained code" dilemma.
> >> 
> >> Ideally, that stuff were made to build again, but limiting ourselves
> >> to actions we can afford to take immediately, what should our policy
> >> be?  Here are the options I see, listed in order of decreasing
> >> preference for me:
> >> 
> >> a) Declare Cygwin and Solaris native support to be unmaintained in the
> >>    README file, but leave the sources in the tree.
> >> 
> >> b) Delete the Cygwin and Solaris native support.  If someone wants to
> >>    resurrect it, it's all in CVS.
> >> 
> >> c) Put off upgrading the auto* files until Cygwin and Solaris native
> >>    build again and the upgrade can be tested.
> >> 
> >> How do other folks feel?
> >
> >I vote for (a).
> 
> I thought Corinna Vinschen was maintaining rda for cygwin.

Oh!  I'll ask her about it, then.  She's been on vacation, which may
be why she hasn't spoken up.