Re: planning 2.0?

Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> GNU Arch is/should be targeting the GNU system.  Therefore, portability
> to other systems can arguably be an advantage, but I don't think it
> should be a strong requirement.
>
> So, if Windows-portability has an negative impact on the design, then
> I'd reject it.  If it doesn't, then we can make it part of the plan.
> That's roughly the "official" GNU policy [0].
>   

That's right. 

There is no obvious reason why Arch 2.0 would have any serious difficulty
supporting Windows.   There are, especially if we can form consensus around
some target markets, strong reasons why supporting Windows is desirable.
 From the GNU perspective, supporting Windows for some kinds of software
is a good way to help spread and promote free software generally.

So, yes: I would agree that if push comes to shove on some feature and the
choice is to compromise the feature or else not fully support Windows -- we
ought to not fully support Windows.

But beyond such a general statement, we can worry about that if it 
actually comes up.


-t