On 8/6/07, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "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'.
I hope Indiana is going to set this build flag to 'ksh' by default. > In neither instance is that ksh88 though (and see, ksh88 was even > specified explicitly). I don't understand why ksh88 would be needed in a *new* distribution. ksh88 is buggy and the Solaris derivate is not compatible to the original ksh88i from David Korn nor the ksh88 versions on AIX or HP/UX. All newer operating systems like Linux, SCO or AIX6 switched by ksh93 as /bin/ksh. In my opinion it does not make sense to retain ksh88 as /bin/ksh in Indiana. Irek _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
