I think it's a pretty sane model to make the mainline version of a project only handle a small number of architectures, and force people who use rare architectures to create a «portable version». This means the maintainer doesn't have to be an expert on 20 different wonky architectures, and cleanly separates the responsibility of portability from the responsibility of development. This is what e.g. the OpenSSH people do.
As to dropping good patches and then reimplementing them himself while taking full credit, I had not heard such accusations before. Do you have any specific patch set in mind, something to validate this?
That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible
Posted May 23, 2009 11:51 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
I'll have to dig it up. It didn't happen often and it was years and years
ago: I dithered about including it. It's not the real problem, to me:
maybe he changed his mind and forgot the original contribution had ever
existed, which is fine. The real problem is his attitude to contributions.
Rare architectures
Posted May 24, 2009 10:06 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
[Link]
I'm sorry, but ARM is not a "rare" architecture. It is #4 for Debian, and would rate #3 if arm and armel were counted together.
Rare architectures
Posted May 24, 2009 11:45 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
More generally, there are more ARMs made than any other processor by a
considerable margin. It's only 'rare' if you ignore the embedded space
completely.