James Carlson wrote:
> Kyle McDonald writes:
>
>
>> I don't know the answers to all therse questions. I beleive they are
>> answerable, but I know Sun had a timetable, and probably didn't want to
>> hold up that one ARC case to hashing out this bigger problem.
>>
>
> Untrue. We held that
Kyle McDonald writes:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > A big question still remains: what is "GNU software" and should non-gnu
> > software go to /usr/gnu?
> >
> That (If I recall correctly) was one of the questions raised on the
> conference call and email thread. I was never clear why that was
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Could you please explain why some people including you try to "convert"
>>> a general problem (that I mentioned some time ago) into a personal problem?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not making it personal. I don't see how y
[Please refrain from copying me on these mails; I, like everyone
involved, am on this mailing list]
On 20 Dec 2007, at 13:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bart Blanquart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The ARC looked at the information given to it and decided that
>> retaining compatibility around the
UNIX admin writes:
> The crucial question is this: is the PSARC / ARC / whatever you want to call
> it -- let's call it "the process" so *rigid* and so *inflexible* that, even
> when someone external reports a conflict, nothing can be done about it?
There's no conflict. Nobody (not even Joerg)
Bart Blanquart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ARC looked at the information given to it and decided that
> retaining compatibility around the ImageMagick command names (that
> had been shipped before in SFW, and exist as such on many other
> platforms on which the ImageMagick tools are ava
Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you please explain why some people including you try to "convert"
> > a general problem (that I mentioned some time ago) into a personal problem?
> >
> >
> I'm not making it personal. I don't see how you read that into what I
> wrote. I was ju
> James, you make good points. Certainly nobody can search every nook
> and cranny or know what is in someone's head. However, this
> particular scenario is specific because a conflict was brought to
> attention.
>
> The crucial question is this: is the PSARC / ARC / whatever you
> want to
> We do not (and have never) searched the known
> Universe for possible
> conflicts that may possibly live in somebody's home
> directory.
> They're just not relevant, no matter what time/date
> stamp might be on
> that file.
>
> You're asking for us to be reasonable, so I think we
> should ask th
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Not to mention that when Gnu tar was integrated, Solaris already had a
>> 'tar' in /usr/bin.
>> When 'compare' was integrated (by the first one to request it,) Solaris
>> had nothing in /usr/bin/ named 'compare'.
>>
Joerg Schilling writes:
> Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that when Gnu tar was integrated, Solaris already had a
> > 'tar' in /usr/bin.
> > When 'compare' was integrated (by the first one to request it,) Solaris
> > had nothing in /usr/bin/ named 'compare'.
>
> Co
Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to mention that when Gnu tar was integrated, Solaris already had a
> 'tar' in /usr/bin.
> When 'compare' was integrated (by the first one to request it,) Solaris
> had nothing in /usr/bin/ named 'compare'.
Could you please explain why some people i
James Carlson wrote:
> UNIX admin writes:
>
>>> If you want to rename compare you will need to take
>>> this up with
>>> the ImageMagick folks.
>>>
>> That is not the approach that was taken when GNU tar was integrated as
>> `gtar`, was it?
>>
>
> No, because 'gtar' is a well-known
UNIX admin writes:
> > If you want to rename compare you will need to take
> > this up with
> > the ImageMagick folks.
>
> That is not the approach that was taken when GNU tar was integrated as
> `gtar`, was it?
No, because 'gtar' is a well-known disambiguator (even the GNU tar
sources search fo
> If you want to rename compare you will need to take
> this up with
> the ImageMagick folks.
That is not the approach that was taken when GNU tar was integrated as `gtar`,
was it?
And whoever integrated it didn't get the developers/maintainers of GNU tar to
rename him (the GNU tape archiver),
But kernels are written by human beings, & they inevitably manifest many of the
traits of those who created them. . . I am sure there are a lot of resident
Star Trek die-hards who will do a much better job explaining. But a couple of
Sun's senior engineers have done a partial DNA sequencing on t
> solid"> (It's a good feeling to know
> that the Solaris kernel has good genes. Another
> smiley.)
>
> Kernels don't have genes. clear="all">-- Chris Mahan href="http://www.christophermahan.com/";>http://www.chr
> istophermahan.com/ href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com
> hr
On Dec 15, 2007 1:28 PM, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (It's a good feeling to know that the Solaris kernel has good genes.
> Another smiley.)
Kernels don't have genes.
--
Chris Mahan
http://www.christophermahan.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cell 818.943.1850
> Garrett's Dad is obviously a very smart man. And
> Garrett seems to
> have learned from his Dad very well. He (Garrett) is
> a very
> successful contributor to ON and a (successful) role
> model that we
> would do well to emulate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX
Joseph Kowalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 decisi
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
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 existin
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
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> > As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate
> > your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your
> > e-mails.
>
> +1 for your Dad's community project!
I am
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> As my dad always said, "Actions speak louder than words." Demonstrate
> your commitment to getting star integrated by your deed rather than your
> e-mails.
+1 for your Dad's community project!
--
Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
>My experience has been that ARC is very agreeable to work with people to
>figure out new ways of doing things when needed. It took us several
>failed attempts, but working together we found a way to document
>interface change in the GNOME desktop that is suitable to ARC and
>which also isn't s
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:35:33PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris,
> OpenSolaris cannot evolve.
You've jumped the shark.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:10:25PM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> 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)
>
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 Jör
Joerg:
>> You've been told how to prevent new conflicts with your tools arising:
>> run one or more ARC cases for integrating your tools into OpenSolaris,
>
> As long as it has not been verified that arc cases help, I will definitely not
> do this!
>
> You are responsible to allow approved arc
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris,
> OpenSolaris cannot evolve.
It is clearly possible to implement ARC decisions in OpenSolaris - there
are hundreds if not thousands of examples of this happening already.
There are difficulties in
>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 claim
that that is impossible is ludicrous.
But they are i
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 Jörg make a proposal for such a change
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full
> >> of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were
> >> really generic. Ho
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Norm Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Your argument there is with the open source community. It's the
>> ImageMagick open source project that chose the name "compare" for their
>> program. Yes, we did choose to place it in /usr/bin along with the rest
>> of
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full
> of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were
> really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already
> cancel,accept etc. It is very impor
On Dec 14, 2007 7:44 PM, Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that we can come up with such a method that will: a) allow
> OpenSolaris to evolve and grow, while b) preventing any conflicts with
> Linux distros (and *BSDs) that are also growing and evolving at
> different rate
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 Jörg make a proposal for such a change without making
such a proposal specific to his trouble
Actually, we have a cooperative process for dealing with this kind of
thing. It's call ARCing.
Joerg Schilling 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.
>>>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When it comes to generic names (which unfortunately ImageMagick is full
>> of) I personally would prefer that it wasn't allowed unless they were
>> really generic. However UNIX is full of stuff like this already
>> cancel
Norm Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your argument there is with the open source community. It's the
> ImageMagick open source project that chose the name "compare" for their
> program. Yes, we did choose to place it in /usr/bin along with the rest
> of the ImageMagick commands, but there
Joerg Schilling 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 command;
>> why don't you rename yours?
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd set Reply-To so your replies, if any, would go to opensolaris-discuss,
> not psarc-ext. One more try. Again, don't reply to me directly please.
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROT
I'd set Reply-To so your replies, if any, would go to opensolaris-discuss,
not psarc-ext. One more try. Again, don't reply to me directly please.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why are we still arguing about this
[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 like you are unwillin
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:55:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name
> > > > appeared
>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?
Since there is already a plain file compare program "cmp" which
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 05:55:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name
> > > appeared
> > > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an importa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Collaboration happens in the community.
> >
> >If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try
> >to collaborate.
> >
> >This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination!
>
>
> No. You seem to operate under the misapprehension th
Joep Vesseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name
> > appeared
> > in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express.
>
> I completely fail to see how your side co
Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collaboration also needs to happen in reasonable context.
>It seems your argument is that your compare exist before hand,
> therefore it
> can not be used. This is more like a trademark game. The OpenSolaris
> community can not afford to search ev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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?
>
> "compare" as a word dates back to probably 1000BC when the latin language
> developed. Its use in english is post-norman, though,
On 12/14/07 12:58, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The real compare is 20 years older and I did _warn_ _before_ the name appeared
> in /usr/bin. For this reason, this is an important bug in Solaris Express.
I completely fail to see how your side comment on a PSARC case discussing
netcat (PSARC 2007/389)
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under
>> for which the product is "ARC'ed".
>>
>> Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC
>> case proposing it.
>>
>> Your "compare" does not
>Collaboration happens in the community.
>
>If you are a member of the OpenSolaris community, you should try
>to collaborate.
>
>This is a case to see whether there is collaboration or domination!
No. You seem to operate under the misapprehension that collaboration
implies that you get your w
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under
>> for which the product is "ARC'ed".
>>
>> Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC
>> case proposing it.
>>
>> Your "compare" does not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under
> for which the product is "ARC'ed".
>
> Your "compare" is NOT part of that product; nor is there even an ARC
> case proposing it.
>
> Your "compare" does not exist in the context of the product "S
>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.
PSARC discussions happen ONLY in the context of the product/release under
fo
Ghee Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is just another chance to verify that there is collaboration on
> > OpenSolaris
> > and not just ignorant domination from Sun.
> >
> Let not argue your case by calling us ignorant! The point is
> imagemagik is integrated.
> It is not against an
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name
is thus illegal.
Says who? And who keeps the record or registry?
Do you like to ignore t
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
>>> WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick
>>> name
>>> is thus illegal.
>>>
>> Says who? And who keeps the record or registry?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
> >
> >WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick
> >name
> >is thus illegal.
>
> Says who? And who keeps the record or registry?
Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> >It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious
>>
>> Why would you conclude that?
>>
>> It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
>
>WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name
>is thus illegal.
Says who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious
>
> Why would you conclude that?
>
> It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
WRONG: in the OSS world the first user os a name wins and the imagemagick name
is thus illegal.
> If you want to re
>It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious
Why would you conclude that?
It's very simple, Joerg, first to integrate wins.
If you want to rename compare you will need to take this up with
the ImageMagick folks.
I thinkt hat integrating open source projects "as is" is vastly
It seems that PSARC discussions are not taken for serious
Let me quote something I did write Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:30:43:
>
Well, even in the OSS world besides OpenSolaris there is a lot of thigs that
could be done better ;-)
Unfortunately, there are OSS authors that do not care about wh
65 matches
Mail list logo
