> > There are also targets that do not support ELF. And I know of no plans to > > remove those targets, or to remove the a.out support they rely on. I'm > > maintainer for one of them. > > The SPARC OBP firmware is a target that does not support ELF which is why > it is no longer possible to build binaries for this target despite being > it an actively used target. > > > Nor are there plans to trim the target set of gcc down to "current > > mainstream targets", whatever that might mean. > > Well, yes, I just linked one of those gcc targets - the e500 target - earlier > today. The m68k target in gcc is also constantly under threat because of the > planned cc0 removal. Both the e500 and the m68k targets in gcc are actively > used. The m68k target is still very popular despite its age.
These targets are actively used -- I get that. However, it is only a part of the equation. What you are asking is that "someone" who does not have a stake on these targets to bear the cost of maintaining those targets alive. No matter how active the users are on that target, if no one steps up to maintain them, these targets become a burden to the rest of the community. I don't think you have much chances of getting that decision to be reverted by arguing how used the target was, simply because it doesn't address the concern of resource drain. The only way I see it being reversed is if someone shows that they are capable of maintaining the target and commits to it. -- Joel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
