Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
John Sonnenschein wrote: > We are considering extending some of the utilities in GNU Coreutils to > provide support for some of the newer Solaris features. We would like > to discuss if you'd consider accepting these additions upstream. If > that is possible, we'd like to get your guidance on about how best to > achieve that goal. > > As an example, we could add NFSv4 ACL support to Coreutils which would > benefit all platforms that support NFSv4 or ZFS (eg, FreeBSD), not > just Solaris. Proposals for improvement are always welcome. Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. Here are some general guidelines: http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/HACKING In particular, see the "Copyright" section. Depending on where you end up contributing, you may need to fill out paperwork for both coreutils and gnulib.
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
On 09/10/10 08:51 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: John Sonnenschein wrote: We are considering extending some of the utilities in GNU Coreutils to provide support for some of the newer Solaris features. We would like to discuss if you'd consider accepting these additions upstream. If that is possible, we'd like to get your guidance on about how best to achieve that goal. As an example, we could add NFSv4 ACL support to Coreutils which would benefit all platforms that support NFSv4 or ZFS (eg, FreeBSD), not just Solaris. Proposals for improvement are always welcome. Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. Well, the features the Solaris native versions of the coreutils have are roughly as follows: * chgrp: Windows SIDs (for CIFS/SMB shared volumes. SAMBA could possibly take advantage of this feature) * chmod: NFSv4 ACLs, extended system attributes, xattrs * chown: Windows SIDs * cp: NFSv4 ACL, extended system attributes, xattrs * df: Zone support ( ie, not listing all volumes in the global zone. Can be disabled with the -Z flag) * id: project support ( ie, listing project membership with a -p flag. Projects are essentially groups with resource controls ) * mv: NFSv4 ACLs, xattr, extended system attributes * ls: NFSv4 ACL, extended system attributes, xattr, doors support (Linux supports doors to the best of my knowledge) Which set of these we'd be interested in contributing is unclear, at the moment we're just exploring interest in the idea -JohnS
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
On 09/10/2010 10:03 AM, John Sonnenschein wrote: Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. Well, the features the Solaris native versions of the coreutils have are roughly as follows: * chgrp: Windows SIDs (for CIFS/SMB shared volumes. SAMBA could possibly take advantage of this feature) More specifically, could you show actual command line uses for these features? That is, what flags or other syntax changes are you proposing adding, that would expose these capabilities. Anything that already has an existing option letter in the Solaris implementation is a good argument for inclusion in coreutils under the same option letter, provided it doesn't conflict with existing usage in coreutils. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
On 09/10/10 09:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: On 09/10/2010 10:03 AM, John Sonnenschein wrote: Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. Well, the features the Solaris native versions of the coreutils have are roughly as follows: * chgrp: Windows SIDs (for CIFS/SMB shared volumes. SAMBA could possibly take advantage of this feature) More specifically, could you show actual command line uses for these features? That is, what flags or other syntax changes are you proposing adding, that would expose these capabilities. Perhaps not, nevermind I brought it up. Although SID -> gid mapping could still potentially remain an option for the SAMBA folks if they wanted to extend it further. We do it as a function of our own kernel-level CIFS server Anything that already has an existing option letter in the Solaris implementation is a good argument for inclusion in coreutils under the same option letter, provided it doesn't conflict with existing usage in coreutils. Okay, so no problems then with features that may be Solaris specific ( eg, Zones ) ? Assuming they'd be (#ifdef sun)'d out. -JohnS
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 09/10/10 09:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 09/10/2010 10:03 AM, John Sonnenschein wrote: Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. >>> Well, the features the Solaris native versions of the coreutils have are >>> roughly as follows: >>> >>> * chgrp: Windows SIDs (for CIFS/SMB shared volumes. >>> SAMBA could possibly take advantage of this feature) >> >> More specifically, could you show actual command line uses for these >> features? That is, what flags or other syntax changes are you >> proposing adding, that would expose these capabilities. > > Perhaps not, nevermind I brought it up. Although SID -> gid mapping > could still potentially remain an option for the SAMBA folks if they > wanted to extend it further. We do it as a function of our own > kernel-level CIFS server > >> Anything that already has an existing option letter in the Solaris >> implementation is a good argument for inclusion in coreutils under >> the same option letter, provided it doesn't conflict with existing >> usage in coreutils. > > Okay, so no problems then with features that may be Solaris specific ( > eg, Zones ) ? Assuming they'd be (#ifdef sun)'d out. Hard to say without knowing more... like how large the changes are, how invasive, how mature. We make an effort to avoid in-function #ifdefs, and prefer cpp feature tests, rather than platform-testing ifdefs. I hope there will be few "#ifdef sun" directives. It might be good to start by outlining one or two small, local changes and let's go from there.
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
On 09/10/10 09:57 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: John Sonnenschein wrote: On 09/10/10 09:16 AM, Eric Blake wrote: On 09/10/2010 10:03 AM, John Sonnenschein wrote: Before you get too far into it, please present your high-level goals on this list. Well, the features the Solaris native versions of the coreutils have are roughly as follows: * chgrp: Windows SIDs (for CIFS/SMB shared volumes. SAMBA could possibly take advantage of this feature) More specifically, could you show actual command line uses for these features? That is, what flags or other syntax changes are you proposing adding, that would expose these capabilities. Perhaps not, nevermind I brought it up. Although SID -> gid mapping could still potentially remain an option for the SAMBA folks if they wanted to extend it further. We do it as a function of our own kernel-level CIFS server Anything that already has an existing option letter in the Solaris implementation is a good argument for inclusion in coreutils under the same option letter, provided it doesn't conflict with existing usage in coreutils. Okay, so no problems then with features that may be Solaris specific ( eg, Zones ) ? Assuming they'd be (#ifdef sun)'d out. Hard to say without knowing more... like how large the changes are, how invasive, how mature. We make an effort to avoid in-function #ifdefs, and prefer cpp feature tests, rather than platform-testing ifdefs. I hope there will be few "#ifdef sun" directives. It might be good to start by outlining one or two small, local changes and let's go from there. Okay, great. Thanks for the replies. It may take a little while to get started but once we have something in place we'll keep in touch -JohnS
Re: [coreutils] Coreutils Solaris extensions
John Sonnenschein wrote: >> Hard to say without knowing more... like how large >> the changes are, how invasive, how mature. >> We make an effort to avoid in-function #ifdefs, >> and prefer cpp feature tests, rather than platform-testing ifdefs. >> I hope there will be few "#ifdef sun" directives. >> >> It might be good to start by outlining one or two small, local >> changes and let's go from there. > > Okay, great. Thanks for the replies. > > It may take a little while to get started but once we have something > in place we'll keep in touch In case it wasn't clear, please do outline your proposed changes at the man page or --help level before you dive into coding.
