"I. Szczesniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 8/1/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: >> > On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: >> >> > On 26/06/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> >> > By people, what's the target audience at this stage? I think my >> >> question >> >> >> is >> >> >> > really whether the first "release" is aimed at users, or whether >> >> >> > there >> >> >> should >> >> >> > be a 0.0 "release" solely for the purpose of Indiana bootstrapping? >> >> >> >> >> >> Good question. So that raises the issue of "non-emancipated" >> >> >> (non-redistributable) files. That is, should there be a 0.0 or 0.1 >> >> >> release that includes them in it? (I vote no, FWIW.) >> >> >> >> >> >> And if not, wouldn't that be the main constraint here? >> >> > >> >> > Non-emancipated is not the same as non-redistributable. Remember that >> >> > there are binary "blobs" that are redistributable. There are several >> >> > files right now that can be redistributed but have not been >> >> > emancipated that are very important for the basic system. (libm.so >> >> > comes to mind... I think). >> >> >> >> Yes, thanks. I meant non-redistributable. >> > >> > I don't even know that we have a list of what is non-redistributable. >> > I would have to agree that is probably a pretty important point for >> > the first release. That way the iso can be downloaded, shared, and >> > mirrored everywhere. >> >> I agree, and even more so now in light of the distro constructor project. >> >> > >> > I know there is a list of what is "encumbered", but is anyone aware of >> > a list of what it isn't redistributable? >> > >> >> There's a place where this is tabulated now: >> http://opensolaris.org/os/about/no_source/ >> >> So for example, if someone used the ON consolidation (click on the ON >> tab) as a base for something, the following is a list of what must be >> omitted or replaced, as they are non redistributable, closed binaries. >> (Question: Does anybody know if the SUNCreq/SUNWCrnet >> mini-metaclusters are derived fully from ON or not?) >> >> Eric >> >> >> audioens driver Ensonig 1371/1373 and Creative Labs 5880 driver support >> pcn driver AMD PCnet Ethernet controller device driver >> phx driver Kernel driver interfaces >> scmi2c driver Smart Transporter chip device driver >> spwr driver SMC EtherPower II (EPIC) 10/100 (9432) Ethernet device >> driver >> ksh88 Korn shell > > I thought Opensolaris already reached the consensus on the ksh88 > matter: Replace the old ksh88 with ksh93 - or do you have other plans? > IMO it would be a shame to throw away all the work of the last year. >
Roland's current work is to integrate ksh93 as ksh93. He also has a build flag to build it as 'ksh'. In neither instance is that ksh88 though (and see, ksh88 was even specified explicitly). -- Rich _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
