Re: [patch] kill off PC9800

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>]

On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 15:53, Matt Mackall wrote:
> Actually it's a matter of fail to attempt to compile, which is
> different than fail to compile. The principle is the same - stick
> advance notice in a highly visible place where users are likely to see
> it. That place is _not_ this mailing list.
> 
> We've had the code for years, and it would be nice to delete it if
> it's truly dead. But it seems silly to wake up one morning and say "no
> one's touched it for a year" and post a patch to delete it that same
> day. If it wasn't urgent yesterday, then why is it urgent today?

I would agree if it were a complete feature, but it's not.  PC9800
cannot be selected for compilation in the current kernel.  Without an
external patch set, it cannot be compiled or used.  As far as I can
tell, it's always been like that.

I think the best way of making someone sit up and take notice is simply
to remove it.  After all, given that we have the kernel under source
control it's not like it's going to be hard to put it back if someone
actually does notice and screams...

James