Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
> > OpenSolaris
> > I am happy to do so but please note that:
>
> Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood t
>I was not referring to sponsors -- the work of making star compatible
>with tar(1) when executed as "tar" is yours to do, and much of the other
>work is yours too, but if you do this as someone outside SWAN then
>you'll be getting a sponsor to help with certain tasks (and either way
>you'll need
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
> employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
This is akin to saying "If I never get in my car, and I never turn the
key, then the car will never start." It
Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again - you keep making accusations and you have yet to request a
> sponsor to begin the actual integration. Stop foisting FUD on the
> OpenSolaris project with these unfounded accusations.
I see accusations from several people here but not from me.
>Fro
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It is Sun that is interested in the integration but it also Sun that tries
> to prevent it now. I am prepared but there is some work I cannot do.
Sun does neither - it pays engineers to do work, but the corporation doesn't
have opinions like this.Someone at Sun was int
Al Hopper writes:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The star integration project started in August 2002.
>
> This is not history; in "internet time", this is simply *ancient*
> history and is of no interest to me (or most others on the OpenSolaris
> project). I'm interested in t
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It obviously doesn't work then because freshmeat.net lists both star and
> > ImageMagic.
>
> I see no relation between imagemagic and star. What is your problem?
Darren is saying
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It obviously doesn't work then because freshmeat.net lists both star and
> ImageMagic.
I see no relation between imagemagic and star. What is your problem?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Mark J Musante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
>>> employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
>>
>> This is
Mark J Musante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
> > employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
>
> This is akin to saying "If I never get in my car, and I nev
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:43:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It most definitely does depend on you since noone is getting paid to do
> > it and noone is volunteering to do it either, which leaves you as the
> > party with the most interest in vo
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came i
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
> > > integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
> > > something else... :/
> >
> > This d
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
befor
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
> > integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
> > something else... :/
>
> This does not depend on me as I am ready and waiting sice quite
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
> > > neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
> > > before yours and now you're no
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
> > neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
> > before yours and now you're not happy; c'est la vie). ecmp, fcmp, ...
> > four le
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
>>> OpenSolaris
>>> I am happy to do so but please note that:
>> Do you have reasons to believe this is no
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - The better readable output from compare is not compatible with the
> > POSIX cmp definition
>
> Ooops, you've got to fix that if your compare is to replace cmp(1). Add
> an option to output the new style of output. Alternatively see below.
Simon Phipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
> > OpenSolaris
> > I am happy to do so but please note that:
>
> Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood t
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
> > gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
> > source form cmp(1) ? As some other
> I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp
> faster? Why the
> need for a functionally-similar (identical?) but new
> utility?
Now that's a good idea!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensol
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As an example, you might check for "compare". This is a program I
>>> maintain since 1984 that is similar to "cmp(1)".
>>>
>> I'm confused: Why not just submit
On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
> OpenSolaris
> I am happy to do so but please note that:
Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood the
request-sponsor process to be working reasonably
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
>> gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
>> source form cmp(1) ? As some other OpenSolaris contributor has already
>> do
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
> gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
> source form cmp(1) ? As some other OpenSolaris contributor has already
> done. I personally think this wo
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> As an example, you might check for "compare". This is a program I
>>> maintain since 1984 that is similar to "cmp(1)".
>> I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp fa
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> For this reason, compare is used on a dayly base, something that does not
> apply
> to e.g. imagemagic.
Depends on the usage of the system.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolari
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > As an example, you might check for "compare". This is a program I
> > maintain since 1984 that is similar to "cmp(1)".
>
> I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp faster? Why the
> need for a
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As an example, you might check for "compare". This is a program I
> maintain since 1984 that is similar to "cmp(1)".
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp faster? Why the
need for a functionally-similar (identical?) but new utility?
> In any event, none of that is OpenSolaris, nor does it establish any
> precedent here, and the prior inclusion of ImageMagick in /usr/sfw
> *does* establish precedent, so I think LSARC made an entirely proper
> decision on this apparent conflict, preferring the popular and
> expected usage rather
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I was unaware of the existence of your compare until today.
Just to be different, I'll admit that *I* knew about the problem quite
a while ago. I knew about the problem only because these two programs
once duked it out over the right to be '/opt/csw/bin/compare' if you
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:04:28PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Everything is ready for a long time and waiting for integration.
> The SFW makefile system is undocumented and idiosyncratic
> and it does not seem to support all I need.
>
> If the makefilesystem is usable, somebody just kows how
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than
they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever)
name is a conflict with another existing one.
I recommend that
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris,
>> OpenSolaris cannot evolve.
>
> ARC does not "decide" as much as approves, approves w/ TCRs or denies.
>
> But projects approved by the ARC are often implemented so to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of
> >proclaiming things.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being
> reasonable.
>
> I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I
>Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of
>proclaiming things.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being
reasonable.
I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I have
yet to see an answer, so I'll be a lit
On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just
> because
> some uncooperative people reused the name?
It's really irritating that ImageMagick grabbed command-line namespace
this way. It's worse than you think, Jörg: "c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be=
> > renamed
> >> >or it needs to be put into a different directory.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare =
> >comma
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >For this reason, the "compare" from imagemagick either needs to be=
> renamed
>> >or it needs to be put into a different directory.
>>
>>
>> Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare =
>command;
>> why don't you rename yours?
>
>Looks lik
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Now it seems that my warning has been ignored and "/usr/bin/compare" on svn_77
> appears to be a program from ImageMagick that illegally uses the name
> "compare".
What law, rule or policy does this violate? ImageMagick was ARC approved,
no other program named "compare"
>Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using
>the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick?
I think it is hardly relevant.
I do not remember hearing of it before and without any evidence of more
than marginal usage (say part of one or more mainstream dist
43 matches
Mail list logo
