This was approved at today's PSARC meeting.
I've updated the IAM file.
Rich
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote:
> work on resolving the issue but I believe that is orthogonal to this
> case (remember, we're talking about a component that was already ARC
> approved and integrated in the Nevada timeframe)
I did note in my original reply that implementation
> I would like to have seen being able to issue an
> IP_BROADCAST_TTL require that SO_BROADCAST had been
> issued first. While there is established behaviour
> in our deployed code base that requires SO_BROADCAST
> to be ignored for sending broadcast packets, this
> case introduces a new so
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Danek Duvall wrote:
>> I'm sponsoring the following fast-track for myself. I'm setting the
>> time-out to one week from today: November 9, 2007. Release binding is
>> Patch due to the desire to include this in the S10 updates.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danek
> [snip]
>> 3. Exported I
Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> I'm sponsoring the following fast-track for myself. I'm setting the
> time-out to one week from today: November 9, 2007. Release binding is
> Patch due to the desire to include this in the S10 updates.
>
> Thanks,
> Danek
[snip]
> 3. Exported Interfaces
>
>SUNWp7zip
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Okay, timer set for one week from submission, November 7.
There's no remaining unresolved issues, and that timer is now,
so I'm closing this fasttrack as approved. Thanks for your time.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun M
So, in PSARC this morning I asked for more time to consider
this case because at that time I hadn't arrived at a place
where I thought I was comfortable with what was being
proposed and I wanted some time to think it through before
letting it go.
So if I can ramble on for a bit
ip_broadcast_t
This case was approved during ARC business at today's PSARC meeting.
Changes discussed in the mail log have been incorporated into an
updated proposal file (proposal.final) in the case's directory.
- Don
This case was approved during ARC business at today's PSARC meeting.
- Don
This case was approved during ARC business at today's PSARC meeting.
- Don
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> * Get code reviews done (I think you need to have input from
>>> someone in Don Cragun's group here)
>>>
>>
>> What kind of code review do you expect?
>>
>> I am not sure whether these people will be able to do a code review for
>> 67000 lines of code (1.6 MB) a
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Bart, I need help with the makefiles and other Sun specific parts.
>>>
>>> Star itself is ready for the task.
>>>
>>>
>> What about the extensions beyond the currently approved case (2004/480)?
>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nothing has "changed", the interfaces have been enhanced in a compatible way.
>
"enhanced in a compatible way" is "changed. Its just a compatible
change. As a matter
of fact, PSARC usually denies incompatible changes.
- jek3
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Is there a chance that you come to reality?
>
> The case PSARC/2004/480 has not been made for
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Bart, I need help with the makefiles and other Sun specific parts.
> >
> > Star itself is ready for the task.
> >
> What about the extensions beyond the currently approved case (2004/480)?
Star eveolves, but this is done in a compliant way (
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> >
> >> PSARC/2004/480 has not been done for fun but because Solaris urgently
> >> _needs_ the code from star for compatibility.
> >>
> >
> > Joerg, either do the work to integrate star or stop complaining it isn't
> > integrated.
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there a chance that you come to reality?
> >>>
> >>> The case PSARC/2004/480 has not been made for fun but because there is a
> >>> _need_
> >>> to integrate star
This case was approved today in PSARC business.
Danek
Craig Mohrman wrote:
> We have examined this more carefully and will do as James suggests
> in terms of NOT shipping the rmt that comes bundled with gtar and WILL
> use the bundled Sun rmt instead.
>
> So we withdraw the creation of /usr/libexec/rmt and /usr/libexec (old
> spec) and
> /usr/lib/grm
James Carlson wrote:
> Joerg Schilling writes:
>
>> Don Cragun wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The project team has made minor updates to the proposal to address
>>> concerns raised by Darren, Garrett, and internal project team members.
>>> (GNU rmt will move from /usr/sfw/libexec/grmt to /usr/lib/grmt i
Hi, James,
We are reviewing the inception issues and will work out a plan and
solutions for them. We will
update you as we make progress.
Hi, Margot,
Thanks for your hard work. You have done a lot to address all these
issues. I believe
you will still give us a lot help in the future.
Cheers
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:34:46PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> >/usr/bin/7z CommittedExecutable location
> >/usr/bin/7za Uncommitted Executable location
> >/usr/bin/7zr Uncommitted Executable location
>
> I really
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
>
>> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
PSARC/2004/480 has not been done for fun but because Solaris urgently
_needs_ the code from star for compatibility.
>>> Joerg, either do the work t
23 matches
Mail list logo
