On Jul 25, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
a viable solution?
100% compatibil
On 7/27/05, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 08:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
> >
> > or we have pdksh, which is a lot closer to ksh88.
>
> The last time
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 08:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
>
> or we have pdksh, which is a lot closer to ksh88.
The last time I did read something about pdksh, people were
disappointed about the c
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Any discussion where people try to enforce a way that is not possible
> > with freely distributable systems is a useless discussion...
>
> Decisions pertaining to the development of the comm
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I have two problems (or potential problems) with your assertions...
> > >
> > > Funny thing is (and the crux of this misunderstanding): there isn't
> > > any such thing as "OpenSolaris" per se in the context in which Roy used
> > > above. There is
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 08:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> We have either _no_ ksh in OpenSolaris or we have ksh93.
or we have pdksh, which is a lot closer to ksh88.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> Any discussion where people try to enforce a way that is not possible
> with freely distributable systems is a useless discussion...
Decisions pertaining to the development of the commercial derivative
(e.g. Sun Solaris) of open-source soft
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Roy> Solaris cannot be placed in a position where it determines the
> > > contents
> > > Roy> of OpenSolaris. That is a dead-end exercise of tossing code over the
> > > Roy> wall whenever Sun sees fit,
Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Roy> Solaris cannot be placed in a position where it determines the contents
> > Roy> of OpenSolaris. That is a dead-end exercise of tossing code over the
> > Roy> wall whenever Sun sees fit, which is the antithesis of what we are
> > Roy> trying to d
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
> > What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
> > a viable solution?
>
> 100% comp
Steve Logue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> How about some data to discuss regarding ksh93
> differences?
>
> Attached is the latest COMPATIBILITY file from the
> ksh93 sources. Please Peruse:
>
> http://www.kornshell.com/
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/
>
> PS. Note that pax i
John Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first is that all the mechanisms which you rail against are in fact
> how things work now. Your statement of how things should work matches my
> understanding of how things ought to work in the *long* term, but we have
> a lot of short- and medium-term w
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:19:29PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > But as ksh88 cannot be included in OpenSolaris, Sun needs to either deviate
> > from other OpenSolaris based distros or convert to ksh93 too.
>
> What Alan was saying is that once
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, John Beck wrote:
> Keith> What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
> Keith> exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
> Keith> to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
> Keith> used by Solaris an
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 03:48:52AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Why does it have to be 100% compatible? That is a serious question.
> What breaks so bad that not having access to the source is considered
> a viable solution?
100% compatibility is not always required. Sometimes, no compatibil
On 7/25/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> > What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
> > exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
> > to ksh93 for backward compatibility; th
Folks,
How about some data to discuss regarding ksh93
differences?
Attached is the latest COMPATIBILITY file from the
ksh93 sources. Please Peruse:
http://www.kornshell.com/
http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/
PS. Note that pax is available from AT&T too...
-STEVEl
--- John Beck <[EMAI
Keith> What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
Keith> exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
Keith> to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
Keith> used by Solaris and included with OpenSolaris for other distribu
On Jul 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
exists, it should be possible to implement a clean set of extensions
to ksh93 for backward compatibility; that implementation could then be
used by Solaris and included with
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:19:29PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> But as ksh88 cannot be included in OpenSolaris, Sun needs to either deviate
> from other OpenSolaris based distros or convert to ksh93 too.
What Alan was saying is that once a definitive list of differences
exists, it should be po
Joerg Schilling wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Absolutely; but if we can replace /bin/ksh with a dual mode binary which
can do both.
If the license issues did not change, this would still be a decision that
is not useful for OpenSolaris as there would be no source for ksh88.
If there i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Absolutely; but if we can replace /bin/ksh with a dual mode binary which
> can do both.
If the license issues did not change, this would still be a decision that
is not useful for OpenSolaris as there would be no source for ksh88.
> >If there is a serious compatibilit
>On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
>>> (g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
>>> not 100% compatible.
>>
>> We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
>>
>> It would be n
On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
not 100% compatible.
We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
It would be nice if we could someho
Keith M Wesolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can't Be Talked About In Public (and hey, I still find it deeply amusing
> > that after all these years, Red Hat is finally shipping AT&T ksh source
> > and Sun has no plans to ship ksh code ;-), but if stuff that's of high
>
> They're shipping
>They're shipping ksh93, which is open source. Solaris includes ksh88
>(g I believe), which is not. We'd love to just upgrade, but they're
>not 100% compatible.
We can certainly ship ksh 93 as /bin/ksh93.
It would be nice if we could somehow qualify the differences and
have a single binary w
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:11:39AM -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, for the stuff that hasn't been opened yet, is
> there any possibility of reprioritizing? For example, it's been said on
Yes, but understand that in many cases it's not up to us; the
organisation that own
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:26:58PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
>
> > Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source?
>
> In truth we're not allowed to tell you why it's not there, but you
> could read our VP's blog at
> http
UNIX admin wrote:
No estimated date; we're waiting for groups to
coordinate and give
permission at the moment.
Soon, I hope.
Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source?
Does it matter?
___
opensolaris-discuss mailin
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 14:24, UNIX admin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:52, UNIX admin wrote:
> > So you have logged the relevant bugs in
> > http://bugs.opensolaris.org
> > right ? Which bug numbers are these ?
>
> No, I haven't; It's the way the ata driver works in certain situations, and I
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:26:58PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote:
> Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source?
In truth we're not allowed to tell you why it's not there, but you
could read our VP's blog at
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/gaw?entry=it_s_alive, which shoul
UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:52, UNIX admin wrote:
> > So you have logged the relevant bugs in
> > http://bugs.opensolaris.org
> > right ? Which bug numbers are these ?
>
> No, I haven't; It's the way the ata driver works in certain situations, and I
> don't
UNIX admin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:52, UNIX admin wrote:
So you have logged the relevant bugs in
http://bugs.opensolaris.org
right ? Which bug numbers are these ?
No, I haven't; It's the way the ata driver works in certain situations, and I
don't believe it's a bug, rather an oversig
> No estimated date; we're waiting for groups to
> coordinate and give
> permission at the moment.
>
> Soon, I hope.
Me too. What is the reason that the ata driver wasn't released as source?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-disc
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:52, UNIX admin wrote:
> So you have logged the relevant bugs in
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org
> right ? Which bug numbers are these ?
No, I haven't; It's the way the ata driver works in certain situations, and I
don't believe it's a bug, rather an oversight.
I just wa
35 matches
Mail list logo
