On 03/22/10 04:04 PM, Don Cragun wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:20:20 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>
>> On 03/22/10 10:03 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>>> Darren Reed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What the default path, in /etc/default and elsewhere, really
>>>> impact are things like:
>>>> - install scripts (that don't use ~/.foo)
>>>> - how scripts run remotely when ~/.foo isn't read
>>>> - at/cron jobs
>>>> - other uses of $SHELL where ~/.foo isn't read
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And notably, that path hasn't changed. The /usr/gnu/bin change
>>> was only in the default .profile installed in new user accounts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> This has its own problems... having the GNU path be used by new users,
>> is going to cause problems when those same users get a totally different
>> set of tools when they issue cronjobs or at jobs.
>>
>> I've commented in PSARC 2010/067. Lets take the discussion there please.
>>
>> - Garrett
>>
> Garrett,
> I'm not sure if you intend it this way or not, but what is coming across
> to some of us (who do not get paychecks from Oracle) is that you want us
> to shut up and go home. You want to move all discussion on a topic that
> affects most of us to the case log of a private case where we cannot
> participate.
>
I don't mean for that at all. But the change of the default path is
being handled as part of PSARC 2010/067 -- i.e. that is the case (and
its still open) that started this whole mess. I'm not a fan of the fact
that the case is closed, but I cannot discuss rationale for it being
closed in public, which I'm sure you understand.
I would be happy (and I've suggested this in my notes in that case) for
the /usr/gnu portion to become a new separate case, which is open. I'm
not the project team nor case owner, nor ARC chair, so ultimately I have
no control over that.
> You have already said that 2010/067 covers several issues and that many
> of them "should" be open. Would it really be that much work for an
> internal ARC member to split 2010/067 into two parts and open the case
> that doesn't contain Oracle proprietary info?
>
Again, I can't talk about the rationale for the bits that are closed
being so. All I can tell you is I'm not thrilled about it.
- Garrett
