On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 11:27 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 11:22:44 +0200, a écrit : > > On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 10:47 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 10:40:37 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Count for what? > > > > > > Opensource is about patches correctness, not people fame. > > > > > > If anybody, whoever he is, takes up the work and produces correct > > > patches, then they'll be applied. It's as simple as this. > > > > In this case if long term support can be guaranteed, yes! > > I don't understand what you mean. > > Guaranteeing long term support *is* about taking up the work of checking > periodically that the port works fine. If anybody does it, then it's > fine. If nobody does it, then the port will be dropped. It's as simple > as this. You're welcome for doing it of course.
I've been doing this since 2012 and I said I could continue doing it, but that did not seem to be sufficient. > > > > > > > > (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 same happens for plain C, C++, etc on outdated architectures. > > > > > > Uh? I'm not sure what you mean here. What I understand is "why not > > > remove support for GNU/Hurd?" which'd mean dropping your patches. > > > > How can they be removed, they are not upstream yet? > > I even less understand what you meant then. Well dropping patches not upstream is a nop, right? > > > I guess that's not what you want, so I don't know what you meant. > > > > If that happens -> means if the port is bitrotting for a long time just > > remove support upstream. We were talking upstream here, not Debian ... > > What support? I really don't undestand what you mean. Remove support for a language for bitrotting architectures (obsolete ports) like is done for old Solaris 9 (*-*-solaris2.9) http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-4.9/changes.html
