Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:46:06AM +0100, Dermot McCluskey wrote:
>
>> I think the Obsolete modifier could be a good suggestion. So,
>> that would change the interfaces to "Uncommitted (Obsolete)"
>> and would mean the binding needs to change to "Micro", as
>> Obsolete is not allowed for Patch binding.
>
> All well and good, but what of the changes and testing I brought up?
> Obsolete is the right commitment level, but putting back stuff that's
> both untested and known to perform its basic functions in an incorrect
> and harmful manner is unacceptable at any commitment level.
>
> The "some consolidations need it for development" argument is not
> sufficient for delivering it. We don't ship tokenize or cw despite
> that fact that some consolidations most definitely require them.
> Perhaps libtool in its current form really belongs in a package that
> is not part of any consolidation's delivery (much as it currently is,
> I believe).
>
Hmmm.... I would very much like to see us eliminating obstacles to
compiling and using OSS on Solaris. This was the motivating factor
in the integration of gcc in Solaris 10, the movement of
/usr/{sfw,ccs}/* to /usr, etc.
How much open source software requires libtool, and doesn't provide
it's own versions?
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts
