On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 07:30:15AM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Thanks for adding ogb-discuss; that should help settle parts of this.
Dropping psarc-ext... > It's no secret. It says: > > Appeals fall into one of three large categories: > > 1. The ARC made a mistake by inappropriately applying (or divining) the > rules. > > The appeal should include a statement of what is correct and why. > > 2. The ARC used the rules correctly, but the rules are wrong. > > The appeal should state why the rules are wrong and, if possible, > what a correct rule should be. > > 3. The ARC is correct, and the rules are correct; a one-time exemption > is requested, based on <reason>. > > Most appeals are based on (3). I think J?rg has effectively been arguing (2), that given the existence of a third party utility that could replace a Solaris one, then the ARC shouldn't approve cases that create conflicts with such a third party utility. Such a rule would mean giving veto power to anyone who writes such a potential replacement for a Solaris utility. We'd need additional rules to help the ARC identify which third party implementations of such utilities should be respected, and which shouldn't be. And what if the third party creates the conflict? Another e-mail from J?rg seems to indicate that he?d at least like a rule that says that the addition of interfaces that conflict with such third party utilities shouldn't impose a compatibility requirement on anyone wishing to integrate such third party utilities into Solaris. But it is already the case that the ARC will not burden star with being 100% option compatible with tar(1) UNLESS star is to be used as /bin/tar. The only conflict-related burden on third party utility authors/ integrators arises when a proposal is made to replace one implementation of a utility with another that has conflicting interfaces (or behaviours that rise to the level of an interface). This applies to libraries, drivers, CLIs, ... Nico --
