Roy T. Fielding wrote: ... I agree with much or what Roy says. I also disagree with much of what he says. For the most part I don't want to get into this as a general discussion, but I think I need to point out that we need to remember that nothing is free (at least free as in beer). A number of years ago it was common knowledge around Sun that the null service call cost in excess of $100. Its probably more now. Supporting additional interfaces, which will probably generate service calls, is not free.
However, that reminder is not why I'm choosing to respond... > No. The choice in that situation, were it ever to occur, is to simply > not redistribute the technology. The premise here is that there exists > a reason for distributing an overlay tools environment that behaves > according to the GNU toolset. If doing that would violate some > Solaris policy, then don't do it -- write your own tools. In this case, > I don't know of any policy that applies to the constraints that have > been mentioned so far. No such policy is documented on opensolaris.org. > > ....Roy Here I think Roy makes a very good point. The space in the OpenSolaris community workspace should only be restricted by the quality constraints and general engineering principals in the OpenSolaris mantra. Sun Solaris is free to not redistribute parts of OpenSolaris. (Its interesting to wonder who would look out of step, if tis were to happen. I'm not sure who would, but I am sure somebody would.) That said, I tend to think that export discussions aside, the root concern here is code duplication. That may or may not fit your definition of architecture, but it certainly fits mine of good engineering practice at a systems level. The trouble is that maintainers often tend to only concentrate on what benefits their little corner of the world. Part of PSARC's job, architecture or not, is to concentrate on the big picture. - jek3
