> On 04/16/15 08:25, Justin Cormack wrote: > > On 16 April 2015 at 00:51, Christos Zoulas <christos%astron.com@localhost> wrote: > >> In article <trinity-40fe500f-df8d-4b60-a4b4-3b73f95b9bfe-1429133530648@3capp-mailcom-bs10>, > >> Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote: > >>> I strongly agree, please follow the rules and move it to Tier III even now. > >>> There are more broken or incomplete ports than acorn26. > >>> acorn26 should run on emulators/arcem, it's worth to give it a try. > >> I a proponent of following the rules, but I feel we've been dragging > >> dead bodies and it's having an impact in our available resources. > >> People who use the port should shout if they want the port kept around. > > Once it is moved to tier III it should not impact any work anyone > > wants to do, as making it more broken is then fine. > > Deleting a port that our documentation says is supported with two > > weeks notice, when we have a documented procedure after an email to > > some lists people may not even be on may well make people worried that > > the port they use might disappear while they are on holiday. And the > > documentation needs fixing. > With all due respect to process... > The portmaster resigned from the project. > The only (visible) user has stashed his machine in a closet. > gcc 4.8 almost certainly broke the toolchain > It's time to delete it. > Nick Moving a port to Tier III and letting it become more broken is not fair; better to be honest and put it out of its misery. Since there is no immediate urgency, maybe give two weeks or a month for anybody who uses port-acorn26 to speak up, then delete if nobody comes forward. I can't figure how I'd use it or find a compatible computer; running in an emulator doesn't really count. For that matter, does anybody still use port-vax? Tom