* Stephen J Turnbull <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Youngs
<youngs_s(a)ozlinx.com.au> writes: 
Steve>  It is free software, so, in your
eyes it's not a dilemma?
 Right.  If you have the resources to provide more than one port,
 great!  If not, it's not your responsibility.  The only thing that
 we'd like is a polite response to the occasional inquiry about when
 you plan to port to Platform X.  :-)  That response can be a flat
 "never" and still be polite :-) 
Yep, I can handle that.  I promise not to raise my voice once while
replying to requests of ports. :-)  And I won't even use a canned form
letter :-)
Seriously, I hold XEmacs [1] in very high regard, it's a fantastic
piece of software that is very well respected in the community.  I
wouldn't dream of doing anything to harm it's image.
Steve>  Should I just submit the package as is and mark the
Steve>  description "For Linux x86 only - please port me"?
 Yes, but I would phrase that as "developed and tested on Linux
x86;
 only supported on that platform" (you do plan to support it with the
 occasional bugfix and coordinating 3rd party contribs, right?)   
Definitely.  I've already spent a great deal of time on this I'm not
about to waste it by not maintaining it.
Footnotes: 
[1]  that includes all the developers, beta testers and anybody else
     who helps make XEmacs what it is.
-- 
|---<Regards, Steve Youngs>-----------[GnuPG KeyID: EFD82ED2]---|
|     It's a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept    |
|          anything but the best, you very often get it         |
|-----------------------------<mailto:youngs_s@ozlinx.com.au>---|