Re: slrn 1.0 [2007-08-25]?

On Friday 13 July 2007 08:40, Bernd Nawothnig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:02:28PM +0200, Thomas Wiegner wrote:
> > Does it make sense to make iconv a "must" dependency and to remove
> > all "have no iconv" code?
>
> Definitely yes. That would ease maintenance.
>
> Better to drop the possibility to port slrn to architectures which don't
> come along with iconv (and which are not that very important for the
> existing slrn-community in my eyes) and gain stability and active
> developement in exchange for that.

This would be a big change from the history of slrn (and s-lang). One of 
slrn's distinctive features is its exceptional portability. It would be sad 
if VMS support were lost.

> There are only few developers 
> actively involved in slrn and one should face that simple fact together
> with it's implications. The iconv thing together with real utf-8 support
> *is* what is urgently needed in the stable branch. And Developement
> would be easier without the need to look at 1001 #ifdef possibilities
> which only a few people in the world do really need or use.

I certainly can't see any reason to support platforms that are no longer being 
developed.

> Version 1.0 is a good opportunity to drop slang 1.* and non-iconv
> support. The mourning would surely come but it would be short ;-)

There's no reason not to use slang 2 if it's available, and as far as I know 
it's available to everybody.

Currently, my efforts to suggest improvements to the documentation have been 
delayed by my ignorance of SGML, but I'm working on it.

Meanwhile, here's yet another thought: can somebody be found to compile a 
Windows binary?

-- 
PJR :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/