Bruce Rothermal wrote:
> This package is needed for a $Supported code project we are working on
> in HPC. Since we are already porting this for our project we are
> directed to make the package available to all and also so it is
> available via the IPS package server on opensolaris.org.
Does this mean that we should be scrutinizing this project much more
closely? If the project is being put into use as a building block by
our own developers, then it is no longer a "familiarity" project, and
probably deserves much closer consideration for architectural
correctness and completeness.
Can you provide more detail about this other project?
- Garrett
>
> Bruce
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Joep Vesseur wrote:
>
>> On 08/21/09 22:31, John Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> This project proposes to integrate the Environment Modules within a
>>> Minor release of Solaris (i.e., Open Solaris). The environment modules
>>> provides an easy modification to a user's environment via TCL scripts.
>>> These scripts set various environmental variables such as PATH,
>>> MANPATH,
>>> etc.
>>
>> I'm not sure my remarks make any PSARC sense, but since there is no
>> rationale mentioned for integrating this, I'm inclined to ask anyway:
>>
>> Does it really make sense to force people into being able to read/
>> write TCL in order for them to configure their shell? I imagine
>> that most of the modulefile(4)s would be written by administrators
>> (how many of them speak TCL?), but users will have to debug/override
>> any settings they want to tweak.
>>
>> I'm just wondering why we pick a TCL-based configuration tool for
>> something like this. If the answer is Linux-compatibility, I think
>> there is enough precedent, whether I like it or not. Otherwise, I'm
>> not sure that we build a useful architecture here.
>>
>> Joep
>
>
>
> Bruce Rothermal
> Email: bruce.rothermal at sun.com
> Skype: bruce.rothermal
> Google Talk: bruce.rothermal at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
