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

[Rocky Bernstein]

Forgot one other thing. May available a server on the internet an OS/2 box
that other libcdio developers can log into to test libcdio code.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Rocky Bernstein <address@hidden> wrote:

> This discussion has gone on too long.
>
> The default is to drop OS/2 support in this repository. You are more than
> welcome to set up another which handles OS/2.
>
> If you want OS/2 to be reconsidered for continuation inside the libcdio
> repository...
>
> Get the FSF assignment form filled out and have it accepted.
>
> Fix up/write get_last_session_os2(), get_track_pregap_lba_os2(). In
> run_cmd_os2(), record a SCSI sense reply for API call mmc_last_cmd_sense().
> See the gnu_linux.c driver for comparison.
>
> When that's done. We can discuss further.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:16 PM, KO Myung-Hun <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 3:40 AM, KO Myung-Hun <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you want to be considered a libcdio developer nowadays, you need to
>> fill
>> > out an FSF copyright assignment form.
>> > Send email to address@hidden asking for the form.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the information
>>
>> >
>> >> This cannot be the reason why OS/2 codes should be
>> >> forked.
>> >
>> >
>> > It is.  Several years ago we talked about providing a server that
>> libcdio
>> > developers could
>> > log into to test. That never materialized.
>> >
>>
>> Do you mean that only OS/2 server isn't configured ?
>>
>> >
>> >> In addition, the fact that I willing to test functionality and
>> >> submit patches if needed has not been changed at all.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You have not been doing a good job. This patch is several years too
>> > late for a platform that no one other than yourself seems to care about.
>> >
>>
>> Why too late ?
>>
>> >
>> > When discussions of libcdio regarding OS/2 come up, you've not been
>> around.
>> > See this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/
>> > 2014-06/msg00004.html
>> >
>>
>> Although I've submit OS/2 patch at first, I got involved from 2014/07 as
>> a responsible person for OS/2 codes.
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libcdio-devel/2014-07/msg00012.html
>>
>> > When discussions around adding the MMC sense command have come up which
>> > needs OS support, you've not been around.
>> > OS/2 support is currently lacking here. It is incumbent on you to keep
>> up
>> > with what's going on and make sure the OS/2 driver tracks
>> > changes in the API.
>> >
>>
>> Right. I didn't read the remaining discussions because I didn't think it
>> related to OS/2 at first. However, if I were not participated in those
>> discussions due to my misunderstanding despite the fact that you thought
>> that OS/2 codes should be modified, then it would have been
>> better for you to request me to join the discussion.
>>
>> And if you thought that such features should have been implemented on
>> OS/2 before a new release, you should have requested me to do it
>> explicitly even if I missed.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It means that if you care about libcdio and OS/2, you need to do that
>> in a
>> > different repository.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>