On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 10:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 10:20:16 +0200, a écrit : > > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 10:03 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 09:49:59 +0200, a écrit : > > > > Thomas and Samuel: It looks like upstream don't accept patches unless a > > > > Hurd port maintainer commits to it. What's the use of all this job? > > > > > > Well, simply to keep the changes working. That is not surprising at all. > > > > I might not be interested any longer with this kind of requirements. > > Well, then somebody else will have to if we want to keep the gnat port > alive. I for myself don't really have time to do it.
Understood > > What kind of person do you have to be to be accepted, a GNU/Hurd > > developer or a GNU/Ada developer having a gnu.org account? > > Nothing special, just like for contributing to any opensource project; > just someone who checks from times to times (in particular before > releases) that the port works fine, and submit patches if needed. I've been working on the Hurd port of gnat since late 2011 including the toughest: bootstrapping, does that count? > > > > (Of course it can at least run on Debian systems if/when accepted.) > > > > > > Sure, but will it continue working on the long term? That's the concern > > > of upstream. If that happens why not just remove support for that architecture? The same happens for plain C, C++, etc on outdated architectures.
