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

* Bernd Nawothnig <[email protected]> [2007-07-20 15:43]:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:27:14PM +0100, Peter J Ross wrote:
> > One of slrn's distinctive features is its exceptional portability.
> > It would be sad if VMS support were lost.
>
> Sure. But how many users would be affected and how much work will
> it be to maintain that branch for non-iconv-systems in the future?

good question.  who will support slrn+slang on VMS?  any takers?

> The amount of time, the maintainers and developers
> have, is limited.  That is a simple fact.

thanks for pointing this out.  i keep forgetting.  ;)

> > I certainly can't see any reason to support platforms
> > that are no longer being developed.
>
> For that the support for those platforms (MS-DOS, BEOS, etc) should end.

anyone here wants to make this official?

> > can somebody be found to compile a Windows binary?
>
> Cygwin should be sufficient and more easy. Native Windows support is not
> necessary (nor desirable) since Cygwin is available for everybody.

and everyone knows that cygwin exists, downloads, installs
and configures it easily, and only to use it for slrn?
yeah... rrrright.

then again.. do we want to support windows
with yet another good porgram?  thought so.

Sven

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/