On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:22 -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > > It would be great to solve this - if we are serious about really making > > Solaris rock as a developer platform I think we have to. > > It already does. A lot of your suggestions seem to equate "good > development environment" with "looks, feels, acts, and sounds exactly > bug-for-bug and feature-for-feature compatible with a hypothetical > common GNU/Linux distribution." We can help people who want that by > delivering /usr/gnu; add that to your path first and you'll feel a lot > more at home (and /usr/gnu, unlike /usr/bin, could contain unprefixed > names of the familiar utilities).
Well, maybe that's the right answer to John's question. However, it sounds just like /usr/sfw under a new name and that didn't seem to solve our "problems" (partly because somehow we combined that with g-prefixing the executables). > > Is the solution to include the current JDS Common Build Environment - > > has all of the GNU/ Apache build utils like automake, autoconf, > > libtools, make, ant ...? > > Absolutely not. The JDS "CBE" (which is curiously named since it's > actually not common at all but specific to JDS) To give you some background on that, the JDS CBE started when we had a task to release the then Linux-only JDS stack on Solaris. So instead of keeping 2 source trees and two different build environments I started to implement a build environment that was common between JDS Linux and JDS Solaris. Maybe it would be better to change the acronym to the JDS Custom Build Environment (; > is an unholy > amalgamation of stuff that's already in OpenSolaris, stuff that's in > the Companion, and other stuff, but with different versions, different > configuration options, and no architectural review. Nice (; Some of the stuff is definitely not in Solaris, some is but exactly because of the differences (like the g suffix) we are unable to use it. The Companion is probably not any more architecturally reviewed than the JDS CBE. > That's > unfortunate for a build environment, but it would be catastrophic in > shipping products - be they Solaris or any other distribution. I don't think John is suggesting to bypass the ARC review of any tools before adding them to Solaris. Laca
