[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

I understand the "sparse message catalog" problem to be that an ast optget usage string would be treated as one string in the message catalog however, this is not how libast::optget() interfaces with the underlying message catalogs almost all of the l10n strings in ast src are arguments to libas

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

could some kind soul figure out how to clean up the reply address for this thread so that I (we) only get one copy of each message I'm currently getting at least 4 of each message and I'm sure I have missed at least one tidbit of valuable info thanks

GnuPG and friends [PSARC/2009/397 FastTrack timeout 07/23/2009]

Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: > Wouldn't the logical replacement for Pth be libpthread or Solaris threads? > Why bother even attempting to write a new thread library when we have > viable alternatives? The goal should be to eliminate the need for Pth > in the programs that use it if possible. Pleas

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp,pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Roland Mainz wrote: > John Sonnenschein wrote: > >> On 25-Jul-09, at 4:59 PM, James Carlson wrote: >> >>> John Sonnenschein wrote: >>> I've got a question about this... Whose responsibility is it to update the man pages and --man command then? The people whose jobs it

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Chris Pickett wrote: > > Personally, I think --man, --html and --nroff and such is a dangerous > > precedent to set. > > What about --help and --version? Do you object to those options, too? > Would you drop your concerns if Roland would rename --man to > --extended-help? -help is nothing new.

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Glenn Fowler wrote: > re concerns about libast::optget() string out of sync with .1 man page > > I mentioned this in a previous post but it must have gotten lost > amidst the volume of posts: the separate ksh93 sh.1 man page is an > exception rather than the rule for ast section 1 utilities > R

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Glenn Fowler wrote: > I understand the "sparse message catalog" problem to be > that an ast optget usage string would be treated as > one string in the message catalog > No, what I meant by this is whether or not all output messages are translated as part of the process of localization. I thi

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Chris Pickett wrote: > > > On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > > > > My main concern here is the integration of manual page functionality > into > > > the commands themselves. I see both benefits and costs. The benefit is > > > that the documentation

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > > > > 1) The commands increase the size of the text segment. Not only does > > > it add new parsing requirements (you have to at least have enough code > > > to handle --man, for example), but you a

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

> > #ifdef SOLARIS ? > > > Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting the project team has to add 2196 #ifdef > SOLARIS statements (45 commands, 4 per option, 20 to strip further > text strings in the getopt template) in the code of libcmd? Irek, you cannot comment the getopts option description out without

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > My main concern here is the integration of manual page functionality into > the commands themselves. I see both benefits and costs. The benefit is > that the documentation is more likely to match the actual command. But part > of the cost is a much higher co

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

John Sonnenschein wrote: > I've got a question about this... > > Whose responsibility is it to update the man pages and --man command > then? The people whose jobs it is to update man pages, or the people > whose jobs it is to update the command line utility? > > Basically if a new flag is adde

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On 25-Jul-09, at 4:59 PM, James Carlson wrote: > John Sonnenschein wrote: >> I've got a question about this... >> Whose responsibility is it to update the man pages and --man >> command then? The people whose jobs it is to update man pages, or >> the people whose jobs it is to update the comm

[networking-discuss] Driver Private Minor Numbers for GLDv3 [PSARC/2009/413 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Just one more note: This case is seeking *patch* binding, and I do intend to backport this change to Solaris 10 at some point. (I'll need this change to support the hardware driver I'm working on in Solaris 10.) - Garrett Sebastien Roy wrote: > +1, and one minor (no pun untended) nit: > >

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp,pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

While you talk about implementation issues and details below, I'm unconvinced that my architectural considerations are addressed. It may be that I chose poor examples, but rest assured I chose them at random. Some examination of the code makes me think there are are others that have a lot of

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

From: "Octave Orgeron" on Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:03 PM: > Why not add an option at compile/configure time to reference the native > man pages for the target OS? That way it's not a Solaris specific feature, > but an option anyone can use on any target platform?? I think that would > be th

GnuPG and friends [PSARC/2009/397 FastTrack timeout 07/23/2009]

Scott Rotondo wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:53PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> I agree with all of your points. >>> >>> However, we've already established a precedent in many other cases >>> that FOSS cases can integrate without necessarily taking the same >>

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

I've got a question about this... Whose responsibility is it to update the man pages and --man command then? The people whose jobs it is to update man pages, or the people whose jobs it is to update the command line utility? Basically if a new flag is added in the future for some reason, how

GnuPG and friends [PSARC/2009/397 FastTrack timeout 07/23/2009]

Joerg Schilling wrote: > Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: > > >> Wouldn't the logical replacement for Pth be libpthread or Solaris threads? >> Why bother even attempting to write a new thread library when we have >> viable alternatives? The goal should be to eliminate the need for Pth >> in the progr

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Here's another counter-example to the claim that no space is "wasted" and that it isn't possible to #ifdef out this text: 1670 *const* *char* sh_optulimit [] = 1671 "[-1c?@(#)$Id: ulimit (AT&T Research) 2003-06-21 $\n]"

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Chris Pickett wrote: >> On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>> Chris Pickett wrote: >>> >>> On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > My main concern here is the integration of manual page functionality > >>> into >>> >>>

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Chris Pickett wrote: > On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> Chris Pickett wrote: >> >> >>> On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> >>> >>> My main concern here is the integration of manual page functionality >> into >> the commands themselves. I see

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think --man, --html and --nroff and such is a > dangerous > > > > > precedent to set. I'd

GnuPG and friends [PSARC/2009/397 FastTrack timeout 07/23/2009]

Scott Rotondo wrote: > In an ideal world, Solaris would include a Pth library (in order to link > and run programs that expect it) that is written to run efficiently on > Solaris (by being a very thin wrapper around libpthread). And this will carry a high rist of breaking te programs that use

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Why not add an option at compile/configure time to reference the native man pages for the target OS? That way it's not a Solaris specific feature, but an option anyone can use on any target platform?? I think that would be the best compromise. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

I totally agree with Garrett on this: 1. There should only be one man page that is maintained. 2. If the --man option is included, it should reference the man page data and not internal binary text. I think everyone would be happier with updating the man page for a command once, instead of havi

[ksh93-integration-discuss] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Chris Pickett wrote: > On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> My main concern here is the integration of manual page functionality into >> the commands themselves. I see both benefits and costs. The benefit is >> that the documentation is more likely to match the actual command. But part >>

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> 1) The commands increase the size of the text segment. Not only does >> it add new parsing requirements (you have to at least have enough code >> to handle --man, for example), but you also have the text of the man >> pages themselves. Wh

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 1) The commands increase the size of the text segment. Not only does > it add new parsing requirements (you have to at least have enough code > to handle --man, for example), but you also have the text of the man > pages themselves. While you might like to maintain the

GnuPG and friends [PSARC/2009/397 FastTrack timeout 07/23/2009]

On Jul 25, 2009, at 6:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Scott Rotondo wrote: > >> In an ideal world, Solaris would include a Pth library (in order to >> link >> and run programs that expect it) that is written to run efficiently >> on >> Solaris (by being a very thin wrapper around libpthread)

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

I. Szczesniak wrote: > On 7/25/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> Roland Mainz wrote: >> >> >>> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> >>> >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > >> Personally, I think --man, --html and

[ksh93-integration-discuss] [busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk, & tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:01:51 -0700 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Now let me break down the architectural problems I have with --man (and > also with --nroff and --troff), as they pertain to Solaris: > 1) The commands increase the size of the text segment. Not only does > it add new parsing require

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> Personally, I think --man, --html and --nroff and such is a dangerous > >> precedent to set. I'd rather not have them, and instead rely on the > >> "man" command to provide this functionality. > > > > Isn't it a bit l

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp,pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Roland Mainz wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: [snip] > Yes, at least we cover the following goals: > - Familarity: GNU+BSD command line options (which increases > interoperabilty, not only across GNU but BSD and MacOSX, too) > - Performance: > 1. The AST implementions a

[busybox-dev] AST versions of fold, mktemp, pathchk,& tty [PSARC/2009/414 FastTrack timeout 07/31/2009]

Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of the > > ksh93-integration and busybox projects. The timeout is > > set for Friday, July 31, 2009. > > > > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com > >Sun Microsyst

FOSS Library Availability was Re: GnuPG and friends ...

"Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > One more point... GNU Pth specifically states that it only executes on a > single CPU at a time, and that there are some restrictions on what > applications must assume that make it easier to write such > applications. (For example, they need to be MT safe, but not