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

[Rocky Bernstein]

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.

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

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
>
>
>