On Sep 14, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Ed Gould said:
------SNIP______________________
I dearly wish that SMP/E were Makefile-savvy so it could play
well with others in "UNIXland".
This seems like a reasonable thing to have SMPE do. I also believe it
is a lot more complicated that it seems. I am not all comfortable
entirely with the directory structure of UNIX and the intricacies
there in. It would be nice if IBM could document the problems they
could foresee and let the users decide if it was worth the issues. I
*THINK* IBM has heard the requirement (I vaguely remember a GUIDE
requirement (and possibly a SHARE requirement my memory is iffy on
that but I think I saw a requirement at a distant SHARE). I wasn't
able to attend the next SHARE so I don't know if IBM responded or not
(maybe Kurt Q. could let us know). As a side issue, I can't see why
IBM doesn't open up the requirements database to every customer. At
least let them search it. It would also be nice to see (for everyone)
what IBM's responses are. I know (at one time just before GUIDE
shutdown) we(GUIDE requirements ribbon holders) were close to getting
access . Guide evaporated and it was a mute point.
Ed
But that's part of a broader issue. The repertoire of utilities
available in SMP/E (and associated element types) should be
extensible by the customer or ISV (or other IBM product group),
not just by IBM Requirement to SMP/E.
-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
