LynxOS re-port (fwd)

[Rob Hartill <ro...@imdb.com>]

not acked

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:29:18 +0100
From: Marius Groeger <ma...@sysgo.de>
To: apache-bugs@apache.org
Subject: LynxOS re-port

Folks,

I'm pretty upset: Recently, and for the second time I had sent you a
source patch to make Apache 1.2.3+ compile correctly under LynxOS, a
real-time Unix. (A LynxOS port has been done in the past already, but no
longer works for the latest release of LynxOS, version 2.5.) Yet I did not
receive any answer or feedback about this contribution.

I find your attitude, frankly, a bit bothersome. Is this a new kind of
software chauvinism, that "unpopular" OSes are just ignored? If so, you'd
be no better than the Microsoft community.

Still hoping,

--Marius

Re: LynxOS re-port (fwd)

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

Can you say "autoconf would be so wonderful because we don't have to keep
up to date on every platform under the sun?"  I knew you could.  At any
rate yeah this guy is totally right, portability patches just sit in the
bugdb forever because we consider them features for some reason. 

Dean

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:

> 
> not acked
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:29:18 +0100
> From: Marius Groeger <ma...@sysgo.de>
> To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> Subject: LynxOS re-port
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'm pretty upset: Recently, and for the second time I had sent you a
> source patch to make Apache 1.2.3+ compile correctly under LynxOS, a
> real-time Unix. (A LynxOS port has been done in the past already, but no
> longer works for the latest release of LynxOS, version 2.5.) Yet I did not
> receive any answer or feedback about this contribution.
> 
> I find your attitude, frankly, a bit bothersome. Is this a new kind of
> software chauvinism, that "unpopular" OSes are just ignored? If so, you'd
> be no better than the Microsoft community.
> 
> Still hoping,
> 
> --Marius
> 
> 
>