Re: Removing MULTI_KBOARD

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:27:49 -0700
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>   > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
>   > > Cc: "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden>, address@hidden, 
> address@hidden
>   > > Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:55:57 -0700
>   > > 
>   > > The code was turned off by default, unused and unnecessary, and that has
>   > > been explained on the list almost a year ago.  If someone has a problem
>   > > with that, it would be much more productive to explain why, but not just
>   > > hand waving, with some real experience/examples.  Otherwise please let
>   > > bygones be bygones, it's a terrible waste of time.
>   > 
>   > I did explain why I have a problem with this: it breaks the MSDOS
>   > port.
> 
> You have handwaved that.  Can you please actually explain why you think that?
> I have explained it is not a problem.

How it is not a problem, if the MSDOS port does not support
MULTI_KBOARD?  I must have missed the explanation, please repeat it.

> 1. The MSDOS port is broken for other reasons, it has been like that for a
> year.  Nobody has complained.
> 2. The MSDOS port was on a widely publicized list of platforms that we
> indented to remove.  Nobody requested it to be kept, so RMS approved its
> removal.
> 3. The MSDOS port might never be revived, you have never committed to do
> so, the only statements you have made was "I might do it".

All of these reasons might be invalid tomorrow, if I decide to revive
it tomorrow.

>   >   . Revert Dan's changes that removed MULTI_KBOARD.
> 
> Please do not do such a thing, this would be a very bad case of priority
> inversion: forcing to keep code just because it might (although it is
> doubtful) make it easier to revive a port to a very old, proprietary
> platform with NO ACTIVE USERS, otherwise broken and unmaintained for one
> year, hence a low priority task for a GNU project.  The code is an
> inconvenience and requires more work when doing maintenance and
> debugging maintenance on GNU/Linux, i.e a high priority task for GNU.
> 
> If the MSDOS port ever gets fixed (which, again, is not sure to happen),
> it can be fixed from a CVS checkout prior to the removal of the
> MULTI_KBOARD code.  If it turns out that the MULTI_KBOARD code is
> needed, it can be restored at that time.  I stand by my claim that such
> a thing would not be necessary.
> 
>   >   . Replace those #ifdef's that are needed by the MSDOS port (I don't
>   >     know whether this means all of them or not) with #ifdef MSDOS.
> 
> That is even worse, the unnecessary code is still in the way of all
> the GNU/Linux maintainers.

I'm open to other suggestions, but please don't suggest to drop the
MSDOS port until I decide to do that.