This is a small update to
PSARC 2007/035 ksh93 Amendments
The project team has decided that one of the deliverables from
the original case, /usr/ast/bin/msgadmin, is not usable and is not
required by this project. It will not be included for
this project but may be included for a subsequent
James Carlson wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski writes:
> > April Chin wrote:
[snip]
> I'm more than willing to leave the metacluster assignments (if any)
> out of the case, and work with the team (and the gate staff) offline
> to make sure the right thing happens.
>
> Is that acceptable?
Yes...
... note
James Carlson wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski writes:
>
>> April Chin wrote:
>>
>>> Below is the updated 1-pager for the case.
>>> The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface
>>> stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description,
>>> and Stab
Joseph Kowalski writes:
> April Chin wrote:
> > Below is the updated 1-pager for the case.
> > The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface
> > stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description,
> > and Stability.
> >
> Since we've been disc
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Joseph Kowalski wrote:
[snip]
> > Uhm... to the same level as needed by the consumers of
> > libshell/libcmd/libast etc. ?
>
> I think what I'm asking for is simply that that "If" be deleted from
> the first sentence.
> They *are* promoted, right?
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
[snip]
> Maybe I'm just confused, but this seems to be a good explanation why
> /usr/bin/getconf
> can't be a tiny wrapper linking with the library which implements the
> builtins for ksh93
> (I forgot name of said library - probably blocking it in the F
April Chin wrote:
[snip]
> > Aside: For those who don't know, I personally view the FSH document to
> > be one of the
> > worst specifications ever created, but there are zelots out there who
> > think it was
> > written on stone tablets. Sigh,...
> > > If the interface stability level of the shar
James Carlson wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski writes:
[snip]
> > > A new package for AST (Advanced Software Technology) developer tools,
> > > SUNWastdev, will be created, which includes all of the above
> > > message-building components. These tools have a dependency on ksh93
> > > and its libraries, as
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > James Carlson writes:
> >> I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the
> >> ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case.
> >
> > One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication. This
> > p
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
[snip]
> James Carlson wrote:
> > The stability of the getconf built-in command-line interface and the
> > system variables documented in getconf(1) is Committed; its pathname
> > binding to /bin is Volatile. The getconf built-in supports additional
> > system variables not
April Chin writes:
> Below is the updated 1-pager for the case.
> The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface
> stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description,
> and Stability.
Given the new specification, this fast-track request was appro
April Chin writes:
> > What Metacluster is this package to be added to?
>
> We would like to add this to the Developer cluster, since it needs
> to be installed onto build machines.
As this really gets into gate management issues, I'd rather see one of
the gatestaff contributing to this thread.
Below is the updated 1-pager for the case.
The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface
stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description,
and Stability.
April
Project/Component Working Name:
Amendments to Korn Shell 93 Inte
Roland Mainz writes:
> > My guess would be that it doesn't belong in *any* metacluster, as it's
> > really only needed for ksh93 development. If you're going to put it
> > into one, then I think it goes in SUNWCall.
>
> In theory I would prefer that "SUNWastdevl" should go into the same
> metaclu
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:09:19 +0100 Roland Mainz wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> > Volatile I guess, but it needs to be explicit.
> > > Interface Description Stability
> > > - --- -
> > > /usr/
April Chin wrote:
> Below is the updated 1-pager for the case.
> The only significant change is the rewording of the paragraph on interface
> stability levels, immediately before the listing of Interface, Description,
> and Stability.
>
Since we've been discussing it, a statement as to which met
Joseph Kowalski writes:
> > The stability of the getconf built-in command-line interface and the
> > system variables documented in getconf(1) is Committed; its pathname
> > binding to /bin is Volatile. The getconf built-in supports additional
> > system variables not available for /usr/bin/getcon
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:39:25 -1000
> From: Joseph Kowalski
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060925)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: April Chin
> CC: James.D.Carlson at sun.com, psarc-ext at sun.com, april.chin at sun.com
> Subject: Re: 2007/035 ksh93 Amendmen
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:39:17 -1000
> From: Joseph Kowalski
> Subject: Re: 2007/035 ksh93 Amendments
> To: James Carlson
> Cc: psarc-ext at sun.com, "April D. Chin"
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/
April Chin wrote:
> Actually, it is
> Stability(libraries) = Project Private
> Stability(utilities) must be >= Stability(libraries)
>
> The /usr/ast/bin message-building utilities are needed by users who
> compile using the library interfaces in libcmd, libshell, libast, libdll.
> Righ
I think we've pursued this "shared source" issue enough in the context
of this thread/case.
I'd hoped to get some type of assurance that the getconf duplication was
a short tem
problem, but it seems not to be. That said, I'm not going to object to
this proposal on
the basis that it replicates
Roland & James have already replied, so
I'll try not to be redundant. I have just a few in-line comments, below.
April
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:32:27 -1000
> From: Joseph Kowalski
> Subject: Re: 2007/035 ksh93 Amendments
> To: James Carlson
>
James Carlson wrote:
>>> If the interface stability level of the shared libraries listed in
>>> PSARC/2006/550 (libshell, libast, libdll, and libcmd) is promoted from
>>> Project Private, the stability of the /usr/ast/bin components listed
>>> below should be promoted to at least the same level, to
Roland Mainz wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> James Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> The stability of the getconf built-in command-line interface and the
>>> system variables documented in getconf(1) is Committed; its pathname
>>> binding to /bin is Volatile. The getconf built-in support
Glenn Skinner wrote:
> > James Carlson writes:
> > > I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the
> > > ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case.
> >
> > One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication.
> > This project delivers a separ
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:57:01 -0500 James Carlson wrote:
> Roland Mainz writes:
> > The current (and likely only working) approach is to let the ksh93
> > "getconf" builtin forward all keys which are not owned by AST to the
> > native /usr/bin/getconf command (that's what we're currently doing).
>
Roland Mainz wrote:
> AFAIK this is not possible. The problem is that /usr/bin/getconf is
> compiled as normal application while ksh93 in Solaris is explicitly
> compiled as XPG6/C99 application (to enable various features and avoid
> that the ksh93 code enables workaronds for older standards funct
James Carlson wrote:
> James Carlson writes:
>
>> I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the
>> ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case.
>>
>
> One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication. This
> project delivers a separa
There are a couple of things I don't understand about this proposal.
I'm not
suggesting a change, simply additional rationale/clarification.
James Carlson wrote:
> The stability of the getconf built-in command-line interface and the
> system variables documented in getconf(1) is Committed; its
Roland Mainz writes:
> The current (and likely only working) approach is to let the ksh93
> "getconf" builtin forward all keys which are not owned by AST to the
> native /usr/bin/getconf command (that's what we're currently doing).
As long as "forward" here actually means "exec," that eliminates t
[resend; this got discarded by Mailman.]
-- next part --
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Glenn Skinner
Subject: Re: 2007/035 ksh93 Amendments
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Size: 3743
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-
James Carlson writes:
> I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the
> ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case.
One possible point of concern here is the `getconf' duplication. This
project delivers a separate implementation of that feature, so that
I'm sponsoring this fast-track request on behalf of April Chin and the
ksh93 project team. Please note that this is an *open* case.
The release binding is the same as with the previous ksh93 project: a
patch/micro release of Solaris delivering through ON. ksh93 has not
yet delivered into any rel
33 matches
Mail list logo
