Rich Burridge writes:
> Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
> necessary
> to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
> version.
> A separate case will be submitted for this.
Is the EOF announcement for 5.8.x part of this case (w
Rich Burridge writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Is the EOF announcement for 5.8.x part of this case (with only the
> > removal being a future case), or are both parts for a later case?
> > (I'd argue that the former is both simple and likely makes more sense
> > here; if it's the latter, then plea
On 26-May-09, at 8:21 AM, James Carlson wrote:
>
>>Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to O/
>> N, but
>>will instead move to SFW.
>
> I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
> time, but wasn't it delivered via ON because of some priv
John Sonnenschein writes:
>
> On 26-May-09, at 8:21 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> >
> >>Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to O/
> >> N, but
> >>will instead move to SFW.
> >
> > I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
> > time, but was
James Carlson wrote:
> John Sonnenschein writes:
>
>> On 26-May-09, at 8:21 AM, James Carlson wrote:
>>
Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to O/
N, but
will instead move to SFW.
>>> I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for th
On 5/26/09, James Carlson wrote:
> Rich Burridge writes:
> > Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
> > necessary
> > to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
> > version.
> > A separate case will be submitted for this.
>
> I
I. Szczesniak wrote:
> On 5/26/09, James Carlson wrote:
>
>> Rich Burridge writes:
>> > Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
>> > necessary
>> > to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
>> > version.
>> > A separate case
I. Szczesniak writes:
> On 5/26/09, James Carlson wrote:
> > I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
> > time,
>
> Is this the only justification?
It's the only difference, so, yes.
> Bits delivered via SFW commonly have
> substandard quality and are very poorly in
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> Not architectural in nature, but I wonder if Perl itself is "meaty"
> enough to justify delivering in its own consolidation. It takes a while
> to build. But then I have no insight into the release engineering
> issues associated having multiple consolidations, and
I. Szczesniak wrote:
>>
>> > Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to O/N, but
>> > will instead move to SFW.
>>
>> I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
>> time,
>
> Is this the only justification? Bits delivered via SFW commonly
I'm sponsoring the following fast track for John Sonnenschein.
The requested release binding is Minor. The fast track times out
on 06/02/2009.
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
PSARC/2009/315 Update Perl to version 5.10.x
1.2. Name of Document Au
James Carlson wrote:
> Rich Burridge writes:
>
>> Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
>> necessary
>> to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
>> version.
>> A separate case will be submitted for this.
>>
>
> Is the EOF
On 5/26/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I. Szczesniak wrote:
>
> > On 5/26/09, James Carlson wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Rich Burridge writes:
> > > > Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
> > > > necessary
> > > > to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it
On 5/26/09, Jim Walker wrote:
> I. Szczesniak wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to
> O/N, but
> > > > will instead move to SFW.
> > >
> > > I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
> > > time,
> > >
> >
I. Szczesniak writes:
> On 5/26/09, Jim Walker wrote:
> > I disagree. In general, the SFW pkgs are very high quality.
>
> I disagree. The software is high quality but the integration in SFW is
> very poor.
This is an ARC review. Can you point out what the _architectural_
issue is that you're t
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:43:16PM +0200, I. Szczesniak wrote:
> On 5/26/09, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > I. Szczesniak wrote:
> > > Is this the only justification? Bits delivered via SFW commonly have
> > > substandard quality and are very poorly integrated. I fear that
> > > putting a critical sys
Hi Irek,
I. Szczesniak p??e v ?t 26. 05. 2009 v 22:43 +0200:
[...]
> > Can you cite any evidence of this? I think a lot of excellent software is
> > delivered via SFW.
>
> Excellent software which is poorly integrated into Solaris.
>
I agree that some parts of SFW are not well maintained. And
This discussion is not really architectural in nature. Best I can
recall the only reason that the consolidation is relevant to ARC review
at all is to determine wither ARC contracts are required for use of
Consolidation Private interfaces or not [ which in the case of Perl used
to be the case
Rich Burridge wrote:
> ...
> 3. Business Summary
>
> 3.1. Problem Area:
>
>Perl is a very commonly-used tool, and is used to deliver Solaris
>functionality (kstat(1M), projadd(1M), projdel(1m) etc.), it is
> used by
>the Apache we ship with Solaris and it is used by sever
Darren Reed wrote:
> Rich Burridge wrote:
>> ...
>> 3. Business Summary
>>
>> 3.1. Problem Area:
>>
>>Perl is a very commonly-used tool, and is used to deliver Solaris
>>functionality (kstat(1M), projadd(1M), projdel(1m) etc.), it is
>> used by
>>the Apache we ship with S
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:35:53AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
> >Is it acceptable for someone to to a build and install of only ON and
> >have documented programs that do not function because the interpreter
> >is missing? Is that impossible or just something we don't care
On 5/26/09, Jim Walker wrote:
> I. Szczesniak wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to
> O/N, but
> > > > will instead move to SFW.
> > >
> > > I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
> > > time,
> > >
> >
? wrote:
> On 5/26/09, Jim Walker wrote:
>> I. Szczesniak wrote:
>>
> Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to
>> O/N, but
> will instead move to SFW.
I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
? writes:
> I disagree. SFW is the trashcan repository of Opensolaris where people
> invest little love for details. Software is integrated once and then
> no one cares about the software - gcc, python, bash are prime examples
> of neglect.
Feel free to volunteer some help to clea
On 5/27/09, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
>
> > Rich Burridge wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > 3. Business Summary
> > >
> > > 3.1. Problem Area:
> > >
> > > Perl is a very commonly-used tool, and is used to deliver Solaris
> > > functionality (kstat(1M), projadd(1M), projdel(
On 5/27/09, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> ? wrote:
>
> > On 5/26/09, Jim Walker wrote:
> >
> > > I. Szczesniak wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > O/N, but
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
? writes:
> > As someone who's team contributes to both ON and SFW I very much object to
> > that allegation we apply the same quality to all our work regardless of what
> > consolidation it goes in to. We choose the consolidation we deliver to
> > carefully based on the requirem
James Carlson wrote:
> ? writes:
>> I disagree. SFW is the trashcan repository of Opensolaris where people
>> invest little love for details. Software is integrated once and then
>> no one cares about the software - gcc, python, bash are prime examples
>> of neglect.
>
> Feel free
2009/5/27 ? :
>> ?I disagree. In general, the SFW pkgs are very high quality.
>
> I disagree. SFW is the trashcan repository of Opensolaris where people
> invest little love for details. Software is integrated once and then
> no one cares about the software - gcc, python, bash are
I. Szczesniak wrote:
> On 5/26/09, James Carlson wrote:
>
>> Rich Burridge writes:
>> > Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
>> > necessary
>> > to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
>> > version.
>> > A separate case
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 10:29 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:35:53AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> > Darren Reed wrote:
> > >Is it acceptable for someone to to a build and install of only ON and
> > >have documented programs that do not function because the interpreter
31 matches
Mail list logo
