* John Levon <john.levon at sun.com> [2006-05-03 20:39]: > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:05:41PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > | For the purposes of determining candidates for the GNU environment, > > | the GNU packages of the FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory are > > | considered the authoritative list [2]. > > What happens if: > > 1) there is a project that provides conflicting binaries commonly used and > expected, but which is not an official GNU project > > or > > 2) a project providing binaries we ship in /usr/gnu/ secedes from the GNU > project > > Presumably, for 1), they'd have to deliver into /usr/sfw/. Which means they'd > have 'g' prefixes or some similar distinction, defeating the purpose of the > exercise.
This scenario has been referred to (in this thread) as the "prefix or hierarchy" problem. Danek raised it for Samba, for example. It is not handled in general by this case. > For 2), which has happened before, what would we do? Decide, based on the stability of the component, whether to evict it rapidly or not. Has this really happened for a name-conflicting component, or merely across the entire set of OSS software? > I'm a bit concerned that "blessed as a GNU project" is an odd match to the > desired features of /usr/gnu/. It sounds like you're proposing different desired features (which is fine). I had hoped the notion of /usr/gnu was precise; if you believe we should have /usr/sfw as a catch-all replacement environment, then we can rewrite and redefine the case. (But I need to get other things done, so I will not be driving that draft.) - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
