On 8/6/07, I. Szczesniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
+1 Shipping ksh88 as /bin/ksh in Indiana would be a disaster - first Opensolaris promises to replace the old ksh88 with a far superior ksh93, invests a year of development and then we neglect the promise and work. We'd be in deep dooo-doo if this happens. Neither would it be a good omen for other Opensolaris projects. Josh _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
