* James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> [2007-08-07 10:09]: > Stephen Hahn writes: > > * Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at sun.com> [2007-07-13 10:45]: > > > 6) That only one Consolidation at a time may deliver the same component > > > (file) to the system at a given location. > > > > Aha. This requirement dodges the charter question in a technical > > fashion, but doesn't talk about charter overlap. (Overlap and the > > possibility of removal of Consolidation status are related.) > > That makes sense as a basic packaging constraint, but the existing > architectural requirements are stronger than that. From 1991/061: > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/shared-sharable/ > > Not only can you not deliver to the same location as some other > consolidation, but (unless you get an architectural exemption) you > can't redeliver the same thing or a modified version of the same thing > to some distinct location.
True, but that's still relatively late enforcement. I'm not sure what the right answer might be: is it okay to have multiple similar Consolidations? How many? Two? Five? A not-immediately-emotional example is hard to find. How about a full-blown device driver Consolidation, overlapping in charter with ON and X11 (if we stretch)? Does it matter that each might be soliciting Projects for integrations? (Are they competing?) Or do we need to be more specific about what causes the need for a new Consolidation? Historical events show a lot of organizational influences, rather than architectural or even low level build-related reasons. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
