The case is scheduled for discussion at next weeks meeting in order to insure the issues are understood and plan for moving forward is agreed upon. If you don't believe that is necessary we can free that time up.
Dan Rick Matthews wrote: > Darren, > I see that this case is "waiting need vote". I hadn't seen a draft > opinion, and thought that > I had at least asked for one. > The discussion between myself and Alan seemed to clarify that this > interface would only > exist in Solaris 10, with a new interface using PSARC/2007/315 > interface framework...in > OpenSolaris and Nevada. Does that satisfy the advise which caused you > to derail? > Just wondering if how this case moves forward. > -- > Rick > > On 07/ 9/09 04:33 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Alan.M.Wright wrote: >>> Providing this as a temporary solution to relieve a customer problem >>> is excellent. My disagreement is that it should be committed as a >>> long term solution for offline support when we already have a defined >>> system attribute mechanism that could be used to solve the problem >>> via libc. >> >> Given the above I'm derailing this case for the purpose of writing an >> opinion with Advice to fund the above mentioned project and to point >> out the issue of adding Solaris/Sun functionality to Samba with no >> planned match for the in kernel CIFS server. >> >> PSARC members please are you willing to vote based on the above our >> would you like to see draft opinion text first. I've marked the >> case as "waiting need vote" for now. >> >> Note that this is *derail* not *deny* (though depending on the vote >> it could be but I doubt it). >> > > -- Dan Hain Solaris Revenue Product Engineering (RPE)
