Paul Eggert wrote on 2011-01-29 in <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-01/msg00545.html>: > The change to gnulib.texi looks good, but my kneejerk reaction to the > proposed change to gnulib-intro.texi is that although much of what's > proposed is useful, it divides software into categories pretty strictly > and this strictness might cause confusion and problems. > ... Overally I suspect it'd be better to keep support levels a little > fuzzy, and not to try to define terms like "essential" and "minor".
OK, I can simplify these categories by indicating how often we test on these platforms: frequently, occasionally, rarely. > Instead, how about something like the following: The question your text is answering is: "As a Gnulib developer, which priorities should I have?" My text answered the question "As a Gnulib user, what amount of portability can I expect?" I think everyone is free to set his priorities himself; there's no point in writing this down here. > Gnulib works on a number of platforms that we call the "reasonable > portability targets". > > GNU platforms, such as glibc, have the highest priority. This is not universally true. We invest more in Solaris portability than in GNU/Hurd porting. > Next come > other free-software platforms, such as Cygwin and FreeBSD. Then come > proprietary platforms that fit well in the Unix/POSIX tradition It's not really the free vs. non-free here. We put more effort into the mingw port than into NetBSD and Haiku ports - although NetBSD and Haiku are free. And whether Cygwin counts as a "free software platform" or not - I don't want to discuss this; it would be a fight about words. > as MacOS X and Solaris. Then other proprietary platforms that are a bit > of a stretch, such as mingw. And last comes proprietary platforms > that would be so much of a distraction to support that Gnulib > deliberately does not support them, such as MS-DOS. This paragraph does not really say why MSDOS is a "distraction" whereas mingw isn't. The real criteria are the number of users of these platforms and the amount of cooperation we get from their supporters. I think this should be mentioned. > However, > already-existing Gnulib code for now-obsolete platform versions is > typically left in place unless it would significantly impede > maintenance on modern platforms. Good point, this ought to be mentioned. > The exact set of platforms and platform versions, and their level of > support, is open to judgment and depends on how much work developers > are willing and able to contribute. Volunteers to help support > other platforms are welcome, but should keep in mind that Gnulib's > goal is to support production applications, not computer museum > pieces or software research projects. Yes, good point. Bruno -- In memoriam The victims of the Zaklopača massacre <http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/interview-with-nihada-hodzic-survivor-of-the-zaklopaca-massacre/>
