Re: Document reasonable portability targets

[Ben Pfaff]

Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:

> The section on intentionally non-supported platforms reads a bit harsh
> to me.  I don't think it is inconceivable that we'll support DOS through
> FreeDOS for example?  Maybe a sentence or two about _why_ the mentioned
> platforms are not supported?  Is there any technical reason we don't
> support Symbian for example?  I can understand why we don't support
> Windows 95/98/ME: it is an abandoned platform with no security updates
> and no commercial support available, and there is no need to develop new
> programs for that platform.

I was surprised also by this section, but specifically about the
generalization about "smartphone" operating systems.  I think
that GNU/Linux via Android could be considered a smartphone
operating system, and I would be surprised if such a harsh policy
were really to be applied to Android-specific fixes.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org