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%
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 Nevada -- which is
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
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 I did read
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 a
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 work
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% compatibility
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 do with the
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, which is the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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; that
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
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 and
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
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 believe
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
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
don't
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
