>Depending on the presence of "-" isn't novel. Other OSes have done
>this before. Inspecting the options in a presumed-BSD-ish list and
>reverting to SVR4 behavior if an unexpected option is seen _is_ new,
>and it's what caused both Garrett and me to say something.
I understand. Clearly, I w
>This kind of precludes adding any new options to /usr/ucb/ps, ever. I
>don't believe that this is a particularly bad thing, just want to be
>crystal clear that this is what we want to do.
As Garrett says that would "violate the principle of least surprise"; the
only problem would be that addin
>Hmm... maybe I didn't understand. As long as /usr/ucb/ps behaves as
>/usr/ucb/ps whenever any valid syntax that was accepted by it today is
>given, then I'm ok with it. (And understanding that "-" is a valid part
>of the syntax. :-)
Indeed. And yes, "ps -xuag" works "as you expect" when
>First off, I really like what this case is trying to do. But I do have
>a possible concern: /usr/ucb/ps could have been used with a leading
>"-". E.g. /usr/ucb/ps -aux and /usr/ucb/ps aux both return the same thing.
>
>I'd humbly suggest that if getexecname returns /usr/ucb/ps then the
>le
"Mark J. Nelson" wrote:
> > ...I've asked around
> > whether it is possible to deliver the contents of one ARC case with
> > multiple putbacks but the answers were a bit "fuzzy"
>
> Speaking not as an ARC member, but rather as a CRT Advocate and former
> Tech Lead:
>
> Standard expectation is tha
The timer on this fast-track has expired with no further
comment, so this case is now approved.
-jg
"I. Szczesniak" wrote:
> On 2/4/09, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > 2. The next ARC case may contain a few more non-filesystem utilties
> > (e.g. "join", "head", "tail", "tee", "mkfifo") from libcmd and (as a
> > seperare ARC case) cover the remaining closed-source commands defined by
> > POSIX (e.g.
This case has timed out and is thereby approved.
-jg
Ceri Davies writes:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:36:35PM +0100, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > >This kind of precludes adding any new options to /usr/ucb/ps, ever. I
> > >don't believe that this is a particularly bad thing, just want to be
> > >crystal clear that this is what we want t
Scott Rotondo writes:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > That said, I do sort of think that the rule you have, while workable, is
> > more confusing and violates the principle of least surprise.(I.e.
> > you added a switch by accident which suddenly changed the meaning of
> > other options in a to
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM writes:
> >First off, I really like what this case is trying to do. But I do have
> >a possible concern: /usr/ucb/ps could have been used with a leading
> >"-". E.g. /usr/ucb/ps -aux and /usr/ucb/ps aux both return the same thing.
> >
> >I'd humbly suggest that if getexe
Rick,
Can you take a little more time putting these
fasttracks together? There are a lot of people
on this alias.
Section 2.1 and 4 are dups. Pick one. Don't repeat.
It may be better to just send out the FOSS checklist.
What about man pages?
Cheers,
Jim
Richard Jr Matthews wrote:
>
> 2. Proj
> >> The solaris.login authorizations are granted to all accounts via
> >> "Basic Solaris User", so the behaviour of the system remains the same
> >> in default configurations.
> >
> > Since we do not want customers modifying Sun delivered Rights
> > Profiles, IMO it would be better t
Garrett D'Amore writes:
> First off, I really like what this case is trying to do. But I do have
> a possible concern: /usr/ucb/ps could have been used with a leading
> "-". E.g. /usr/ucb/ps -aux and /usr/ucb/ps aux both return the same thing.
>
> I'd humbly suggest that if getexecname retur
This case is now approved.
The only change to the initial proposal is that the default value of the
"eject_button" SMF property for rmvolmgr will now be boolean true,
rather than false, as discussed earlier.
-Artem
I suspected as much. Thanks for the clarification.
I expect we'll want an answer to the question I've asked in the future,
but it isn't needed for this case.
-- Garrett
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> This driver is SPARC only. The only OpenSolaris release shipped for SPARC
> is a early develo
This driver is SPARC only. The only OpenSolaris release shipped for SPARC
is a early developer preview that shipped last week - no supported version
of OpenSolaris has shipped on SPARC, and the version that shipped has no
X support for these graphics cards since they only have Xsun support and
Op
Actually, this case does raise one question (which doesn't impact my +1
below) -- we've already "shipped" some OpenSolaris releases.
It isn't clear to me what the EOF rules would be for things that shipped
in OpenSolaris releases should be ... although I don't think this
particular driver has e
> >> (While at this point there is nothing fundamentally different between
> >> a "rights profile" as assigned to users and a "policy profile" as
> >> specified as argument here they are conceptually different: the first
> >> assigns all rights and auths it contains, while the latter is used to
+1.
-- Garrett
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> I am sponsoring this case on behalf of the recently combined X server
> and SPARC graphics teams. It has been split out from the larger
> PSARC 2009/072 case into this separate fasttrack.
>
> The timeout is set for Tuesday, Feb. 17, due to the US ho
James Carlson wrote:
> Scott Rotondo writes:
>> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> That said, I do sort of think that the rule you have, while workable, is
>>> more confusing and violates the principle of least surprise.(I.e.
>>> you added a switch by accident which suddenly changed the meaning of
>
> +1 to the change along with Garrett's suggestion, which I understand
> to be in priority order:
>
> /usr/ucb/ps -> only BSD flags, regardless of "-"
> "-" present -> only USL flags
> no "-" -> only BSD flags
+1 I can then stop having to remember which ps path I have to type
Gary..
Scott Rotondo wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> That said, I do sort of think that the rule you have, while workable,
>> is more confusing and violates the principle of least surprise.
>> (I.e. you added a switch by accident which suddenly changed the
>> meaning of other options in a totally
This case, having received the requisite +1, is being marked closed
approved.
-- mark
This case, having resolved all outstanding issues, is being marked
closed approved.
-- mark
This case, having received the requisite +1, is being marked closed
approved.
-- mark
This case, having resolved all outstanding issues, is being marked
closed approved.
-- mark
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> That said, I do sort of think that the rule you have, while workable, is
> more confusing and violates the principle of least surprise.(I.e.
> you added a switch by accident which suddenly changed the meaning of
> other options in a totally unexpected fashion.)
This
Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>> First off, I really like what this case is trying to do. But I do have
>> a possible concern: /usr/ucb/ps could have been used with a leading
>> "-". E.g. /usr/ucb/ps -aux and /usr/ucb/ps aux both return the same thing.
>>
>> I'd humbly suggest that if getexecn
All,
The discussion having converged and the timeout being reached I
am closing this case as approved.
Thanks,
John
I am sponsoring this fast-track for Vivek Titarmare. The
timeout is set at Feb 18. The case directory contains the supplied
materials.
This fast-track is a portion of the Drools case LSARC 2008/748, which
is a dependency of ADM - PSARC 2007/210.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
Thi
I am sponsoring this fast-track for Vivek Titarmare. The
timeout is set at Feb 18. The case directory contains the supplied
materials.
This fast-track is a portion of the Drools case LSARC 2008/748, which
is a dependency of ADM - PSARC 2007/210.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
Thi
I am sponsoring this fast-track for Vivek Titarmare. The
timeout is set at Feb 18. The case directory contains the supplied
materials.
This fast-track is a portion of the Drools case LSARC 2008/748, which
is a dependency of ADM - PSARC 2007/210.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
Thi
Vivek,
The FOSS check list states that there are libraries being delivered
with this project. However, the libraries are not included in the
Exported Interface tables. Is this information incorrect in the
FOSS check list or is there missing information within the interface
table?
Thanks,
John
First off, I really like what this case is trying to do. But I do have
a possible concern: /usr/ucb/ps could have been used with a leading
"-". E.g. /usr/ucb/ps -aux and /usr/ucb/ps aux both return the same thing.
I'd humbly suggest that if getexecname returns /usr/ucb/ps then the
legacy UC
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
Unified ps(1)
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Casper Dik
1.3 Date of This Document:
09 Febr
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
antlr runtime
1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier:
Author: Vivek Titarmare
1.3 Date of This Document:
09
> ...I've asked around
> whether it is possible to deliver the contents of one ARC case with
> multiple putbacks but the answers were a bit "fuzzy"
Speaking not as an ARC member, but rather as a CRT Advocate and former
Tech Lead:
Standard expectation is that a single ARC case will be integrated
+1
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 08:46, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> John Fischer wrote:
> > Garrett,
> >
> > This project appears to be deprecating the sdtaudiocontrol
> > application in a Patch release of Solaris and removing it in
> > a Minor release of Solaris. Correct? If so then the interface
> > is
John Fischer wrote:
> Garrett,
>
> This project appears to be deprecating the sdtaudiocontrol
> application in a Patch release of Solaris and removing it in
> a Minor release of Solaris. Correct? If so then the interface
> is Obsolete Uncommitted. What about the SADA mixer framework?
> Are you d
James Carlson wrote:
> George Vasick writes:
>> Thanks for your many comments and helpful feedback. Attached, please
>> find a revised proposal. It contains major changes to the previous
>> proposal as follows:
>
> This looks pretty nice except for one bit that seems a little
> unfortunate:
>
Garrett,
This project appears to be deprecating the sdtaudiocontrol
application in a Patch release of Solaris and removing it in
a Minor release of Solaris. Correct? If so then the interface
is Obsolete Uncommitted. What about the SADA mixer framework?
Are you doing the same for it as well?
Th
Christof Pintaske writes:
> A user can add to the repository by submitting the document to the
> opensolaris documentation community and notifying us. The number of
> submissions in that community is so low that I don't see that any
> further automation is justified (so far we haven't seen any d
I'm filing this on my own behalf. While the proposal is for EOF of a
closed source bit (sdtaudiocontrol), I think its fair for the
discussion to be in the open, so the case is left open. The timeout
is set for Feb 16, 2009. Thanks.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase %I% %G% SMI
This informatio
44 matches
Mail list logo