On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 11:48 +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > > I have more patches to gnulib for MINT. Shall I just file them as bugs ? > > > > > > It depends how serious MINT as a platform is. What is MINT at all? Why > > > does > > > it lack basic functions like mbrtowc, standardized in ANSI C Amendment 1? > > > > MINT runs on the Atari ST. > > Oh, you mean MiNT? I used this in 1990-1992. Definitely a museum system by > now.
Right. > > You can google FreeMiNT. > > http://freemint.de/ - last update of the software 5.7 years ago... That site is old, and doesn't reflect the current state. > > > Is this platform in active development? If so, it might be easier to add > > > the > > > missing functions or fix the bugs that might be uncovered by gnulib's > > > tests. > > > > There's only a handful of developers with minimal time. > > In this situation, you cannot expect commitment from gnulib. You can, of > course, report problems that you find. But I will give priority to issues > found with recent Unix version and mingw. And I have ca. 25 such issues > pending. The only commitment I'm asking from gnulib is to apply patches that we submit. They'll be #ifdef __MINT__ anyway, isn't that acceptable ?? > Problems that you should report in any case, however, are problems in the > module description: missing source files, missing dependencies, or errors > signalled by 'autoconf' while creating the configure file. Alan.
