Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > 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). > > If the Solaris libcmd were to be renamed, I could have X & CDE modified > to use the new one in less than an hour. JDS would probably take about as > long if we asked the JDS guys. You could avoid flag day pain by adding > a symlink or the function filters for a couple builds to allow the other > consolidations to transition and then drop it once everyone has. > (Unless special arrangements are made, X, CDE, and JDS normally build their > packages for Solaris Nevada build "n" on systems installed with Solaris > Nevada build n-2. We have made special arrangements when needed, such > as when coordinating the Trusted Extensions integration across the > consolidations.)
What about Solaris 10 ? Would it be possible to make a "flag day" for that OS release which covers all affected consolidations (e.g. consumers of libcmd.so) ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
