Joerg Schilling wrote:
> You forget the most important result from the ARC discussion:
>
> If there is a name collision the cannot be resolved, the name cannot be used
> in /usr/bin.
>
> Current Solaris express is in conflict with ARC decisions.
>
> Jörg
>
Seriously: Could you cite the precedent
Brian Gupta wrote:
Joseph,
I have made an effort to incorporate your comments into a new list.
Sorry to contribute to the discussion and then disappear. I found my
way into the hospital and now just getting back into the e-mail.
All I was trying to do was focus on the concept. Judging
Brian Gupta wrote:
The first reason listed is a big one. In my mind, it is 99.44% of any
reason
for doing this. In all honesty, it may be a big enough reason by
itself.
If this is reason enough, why does it need to be limited to this?
It was in what you elided from the repl
I cut the distribution down, but probably not enough. Others please
feel free to cut even more. Perhaps the first mail should have gone to
"announce" and follow-ups to "approach". I can't tell Brian's intent.
Brian sent me private mail asking why I was against this. If he's
unclear, I thi
Brian Gupta wrote:
Various drivers behind an effort to produce OSH.
1) There is a desire for a minimal/core OpenSolaris distro, that other
distro packagers can leverage to create their own distros. Building a
distro from this core *may*, in the future, allow other distros to
also be hosted at O
Brian Gupta wrote:
I also propose referring to this project as OSH (Just so we have a
non-controversial name to call it). Naming is something that should be
addressed later. Please, let's not belabor this point.
OSH = "Orchid Supply Hardware", a hardware chain much like ACE,
but without John Mad
