Re: [patch] kill off PC9800

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 16:28, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>Although I like deleting things as much as the next guy :) I do have a 
>>question, to which I haven't come up with a good answer myself:
>>
>>Should PC9800 be excised en masse, or just toss the obviously broken or 
>>not-in-any-makefile/Kconfig pieces?
>>
>>The PC9800 net driver stuff still seems to build, and be sane.
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the net stuff but if it's like the SCSI stuff, it's
> only usable in a pc9800.  The vanilla kernel currently has no way to
> select a pc9800 subarchitecture build.
> 
> This is a test of interest.  Since the pc9800 can't build the vanilla
> kernel, is anyone maintaining the out of tree pieces to allow it to
> build, and would they take on the job of maintaining it in-tree? if
> no-one's interested in maintaining the pc9800 subarchitecture
> components, it stands to reason that no-one is going to be compiling or
> running the net or scsi drivers, so there's no point keeping them
> hanging around.  Thus, if one piece goes, they all should.


Yeah, I suppose I agree, though I dislike removing it en masse for some 
reason.  No real technical reason, more just gut feeling...  The PC9800 
people spent a good long while working with Alan and others to get what 
little bits got merged into the kernel.

I suppose disappearing and not maintaining the code is the overriding 
factor here...

	Jeff