Re: [Libcdio-devel] [PATCH] Remove unnecessary high-memory safe wrapper for DosDevIOCtl() on OS/2

[KO Myung-Hun]

Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> You have described why there should be a libcdio for OS/2 but not why it is
> a bad idea for libcdio stop development, and more to the point, pass it on
> to someone else to be developed elsewhere.
> 
> I won't go again into why libcdio developers can't support OS/2. At this
> point let's just take it as a fact.
> 
> If you care about continuing development on OS/2, then with my blessing
> take the code and make necessary changes you want and share that with
> others.
> 

The fact that libcdio developers except me cannot support OS/2 has not
changed at all. This cannot be the reason why OS/2 codes should be
forked. In addition, the fact that I willing to test functionality and
submit patches if needed has not been changed at all.

Why do OS/2 codes should be forked ?

> This is basically what eComStation and ArcaOS must do. I doubt you get
> their development from IBM's web or download servers.
> 

I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean.

> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM, KO Myung-Hun <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>>>  I didn't have to do any activity for OS/2.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is *exactly *the wrong-minded thinking that  brings us to the
>> current
>>>  problem. You didn't do activity on OS/2 libcdio, but others (and
>> possibly
>>> you) did make changes on kLIBC. And when things change in the (preferred)
>>> OS environment or in libcdio, someone has to check that things haven't
>>> broken. That's why we have the libcdio tests.
>>>
>>> Someone has to be running those periodically. None of the libcdio
>>> developers have a way to easily test this on OS2, so we haven't.  I
>> thought
>>> it was the understanding that you were going to take on this
>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> And that's the *only *reason OS/2 support hasn't been dropped altogether
>>> before, which in my opinion is the responsible thing to do.
>>
>> You're right. And I already admitted that it was my mistake to think
>> that just build test was enough.
>>
>>> IBM has said
>>> "end of life support" was 2006. Well in 2016 I think we need to say from
>>> the libcdio side, that's also officially the case.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and No. IBM said so. But, OS/2 is still being supported and sold as
>> eComStation(http://www.ecomstation.com/) and
>> ArcaOS(https://www.arcanoae.com/).
>>
>>> Do you mean fork ? Or other branch ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean fork. In other words, copy the git repository or work from release
>>> tarballs or however you prefer to handle it.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I don't think it would be a good idea.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>>
>> Because OS/2 does not encounter "end of life support" IBM said, yet. And
>> I still willing to submit patches for OS/2 if needed although I missed a
>> proper time to send the patch once. In addition, I'll run test programs
>> as well as build them. :)
>>
>> --
>> KO Myung-Hun
>>
>> Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
>> Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
>> In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM
>>
>> Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
KO Myung-Hun

Using Mozilla SeaMonkey 2.7.2
Under OS/2 Warp 4 for Korean with FixPak #15
In VirtualBox v4.1.32 on Intel Core i7-3615QM 2.30GHz with 8GB RAM

Korean OS/2 User Community : http://www.ecomstation.co.kr