Joerg Schilling wrote: > John Plocher <John.Plocher at Sun.COM> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote: >>>> No, not really. If you want to create a new portability layer, then >>>> please propose a new case. This case is about the rmt and star >>>> application programs, and the supporting librmt. >>> This is not a new portability layer. It is in use since more than 15 years. >> Repeat after me: "It is a new portability layer for OpenSolaris". >> It is also NOT THIS CASE. > > I am sorry to see that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion. > Could you please stay out of this discussion unless you are willing to > contribute? > > Repeat after me: "If /usr/include/schily/ is unacceptable in OpenSolaris I > will first need to remove /usr/include/ast".
John was actually trying to HELP star get integrated by suggesting that the issue of the include files be dealt with in another case where an appropriate discussion can be had. Now as it happens I agree with you but I also think we shouldn't have the header file discussion now unless the header files need to be shipped for star to work at runtime. A later case that presents either parts of the Schily system or the whole thing is the best place to have the discussion. In my opinion ast and plenty of other things already set sufficient precedence but I'd like to see a case (or cases) that deals with the library interfaces separately from a case (this one) that deals with the admin usable CLI of star. That is what John means two when he says "NOT THIS CASE". We can get star integrated via this case or we can have a big long discussion about stuff that wasn't part of this case material. Which would you prefer we do now ? -- Darren J Moffat
