Windows port?

[Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Cathey, Jim <jcathey at ciena.com> wrote:
>> One question I have been asking to myself is whether and how the
>> applets irrelevant to a target system should be dealt with:
>>  * disabled at the configuration stage using KConfig dependencies;
>>  * allowed to fail to build if the user chooses them;
>>  * allowed to build successfully with stub functions replacing the
>> missing calls (a fake mount() function, for instance), but which will
>> always fail at runtime.
>
> So it's a mix of 1. and 3. I hate build failures, 2. is out of question.
>
> For me, 2 is far superior to 3.  I hate debugging at run-time
> that which can be better dealt with at compile time.  If it isn't
> going to run anyway, why even let it build?  Looked at another way,
> with #3 you (as a developer/system provider) have exported YOUR
> problem to your customer.  Not cool.

Look on the bright side, #3 will allow me to incrementally improve the
code. Applets that build must sort of work. Completely broken applets
should be filtered out by #1. It's not that a fault will slip through
though. Serious syscalls should always be checked for return status.
So if some functions are not implemented, users should be told "hey,
not implemented". Then they can get back to me.
-- 
Duy