From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264682AbUEPRvF (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 13:51:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264701AbUEPRvF (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 13:51:05 -0400 Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:29606 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264682AbUEPRuu (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 13:50:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 From: James Bottomley To: Andrew Morton , randy.dunlap@osdl.org Cc: Linux Kernel Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-9) Date: 16 May 2004 12:50:37 -0500 Message-Id: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy.Dunlap" wrote: > > PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers > don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile. And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it? Does anyone know when they were last manufactured, and how popular they are? Hey, just being obsolete is no grounds for eliminating a subarchitecture... However, I would have to say that being unmaintained is. Because of the penchant of x86 people to go "it compiles on my PC, ship it", the x86 subarchitectures are about the fastest bitrotting pieces of the kernel there are. Since mach-pc9800 cannot currently be compiled and there's no evidence that it actually was, I'd remove it unless someone steps up quickly to maintain it (and get it to the point where it's actually compileable). James