Re: [commit] Fix prototype related breakage in go32-nat.c

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:02:57 +0100
> 
> You know *now* that this happened before the dispute, but you didn't
> when you posted the patch and the question "Didn't we agree at the
> time that the prototypes should be corrected as well?" --- why did
> you need to ask it?

Because it seemed to me that the change which failed to update the
prototypes was the subject of that dispute.  But that was due to a
honest mistake, whereas the comment about ``needless forward
declarations'' was not.

> I can only assume that people interested in keeping the port alive
> will be the people that build it most frequently.  And I assumed
> that the port maintainer would build it regularly.

I'm doing my best.  I'm alone.  There's no one to come and help.  It's
not easy, what with my non-existent free time, of which I invest a
large portion into timely reviews of the GDB docs patches (which of
course has priority over taking care of the DJGPP build).

Back in August I thought that the DJGPP port had no users, because I
didn't hear from the DJGPP news group for a long time.  But it turned
out this was because of some snafu between my account on gnu.org and
DJ's server, which DJ fixed a couple of months ago, and since then
I've seen that the forum is alive and kicking, and people are
evidently still using DJGPP ports.  So I'm trying to revive GDB as
well, after I did the same with Emacs.

It's not easy, but I'm doing it.  All I'm asking for is a bit of
sympathy, and a small effort here and there.  Is that too much to ask
from a community to which I contribute every single week?