Dan Price wrote: > On Wed 23 Aug 2006 at 02:27PM, Felix Schulte wrote: > > On 8/23/06, Dan Price <dp at eng.sun.com> wrote: > > > > > >I've been following this project, although I just joined the > > >mailing list. > > > > > >I have a couple of questions regarding the shape of the > > >project: > > > > > > - What is the nature of the replacing of libcmd.so? If I'm > > > not mistaken, I noticed that the existing libcmd.so is > > > being overwritten by the tarball which was recently > > > published. I wondered why that would be. > > > > All the functions in Solaris libcmd.so have been ported over to the > > ksh93 libcmd.so which will replace the Solaris version > > Why are we intermingling "native" and "non native" code together > in one library? That seems like a suspiciously non-architectural > solution to a name collision. Is there a real rationale here?
Please take a look at my previous email. IMO this solution is pretty strightforward since it keeps the binary compatibilty to BOTH versions of libcmd.so alive, something which is mandatory for a backport to Solaris 10. Another interesting posting may be the "tourist guide" to the ksh93-integration prototype002, AFAIK that was http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-June/000432.html (but I cannot verify that URL right now - mail.opensolaris.org seems to be down... ;-( ). > It would seem to me to make a lot more sense to move the existing (in > Solaris) libcmd.so over to libcmd_private.so (or fold it into libuutil > or some such), and update the consumers. Since libcmd is undocumented > and private, this should be straightforward (although it might be > possible that there is some libcmd proliferation into JDS or CDE > or other places, which would be good to cleanse anyway). Umpf... I really cannot cleanup all other mess generated by other people - the days only have a limited number of hours and most of my free time was occupied to implement all requests, ideas, comments, suggestions, bugfixes etc. for the ksh93-integration prototype002 (we already had the "anniversary" of the 400th commit to svn.genunix.org where the ksh93-integration prototype is hosted). The current solution for libcmd based on Sun's prefernce for backwards-compatibilty and MANY MANY other issues were addressed this way, too. Just renaming the Solaris version of libcmd.so and annouce a "flag day" isn't even 5% of the work which would need to be done (and I expect around three/four months/engineer to get that propperly done). > > > - Which consolidation is this project targetting? I > > > understand that ksh93 has its own build system, and > > > I was wondering which consolidation would best accomodate > > > that uniqueness. > > ksh93 is integrated into the Opensolaris consolidation > > [Alan's reply noted] Anyway, I assume you mean "OS/Net"? Or > do you mean SFW (which is, for example, where bash, tcsh and > zsh live). We're targeting OS/Net for a couple of reasons (see my examples in my other postings). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
