Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack, timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-16 Thread Peter Dennis
This case has timed out with a +1 and, in addition, was approved during the PSARC meeting of 16-Jun-2010. pete ___ opensolaris-arc mailing list opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org

EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack, timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-10 Thread Peter Dennis
Below is an amended proposal. Timer is not reset as it essentially clarifies the discussion so far. Required release binding: Patch binding for the announcement and marking as Obsolete. Minor binding for the removal. 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: EOF

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack, timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-10 Thread Garrett D'Amore
KzEKClBldGVyIERlbm5pcyA8cGV0ZXIuZGVubmlzQG9yYWNsZS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgoKPkJlbG93 IGlzIGFuIGFtZW5kZWQgcHJvcG9zYWwuIFRpbWVyIGlzIG5vdCByZXNldCBhcyBpdCBlc3NlbnRp YWxseQo+Y2xhcmlmaWVzIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHNvIGZhci4KPgo+UmVxdWlyZWQgcmVsZWFz

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack, timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-10 Thread Andrew Gabriel
If you base64 decode it, it just says: +1 ;-) ольга крыжановская wrote: How long did you type on the text below? :) Something is wrong, either list or mail app. Olga 2010/6/10 Garrett D'Amore garr...@damore.org:

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack, timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-10 Thread Michael Schuster
On 10.06.10 20:48, Andrew Gabriel wrote: If you base64 decode it, it just says: +1 Garrett does sometimes have a roundabout way of saying things ;-)) cheers -- michael.schus...@oracle.com http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-09 Thread Scott Rotondo
On 6/8/10 1:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: d) every bit costs something. to compile, to link, to deliver. Just in the listing of /usr/bin. Anything which serves no useful function should IMO be removed. (Individually, these costs are minuscule, but taken collectively over the entire life of

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-09 Thread Venky
Nevertheless, if there are _any_ scripts that use it, unless you get rid of all 29 (or however many) links to it, I don't see any incremental gain by removing some of them. Am taking the conservative approach here by removing only those commands which could not possibly return true. It would

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-09 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
Nevertheless, if there are _any_ scripts that use it, unless you get rid of all 29 (or however many) links to it, I don't see any incremental gain by removing some of them. Am taking the conservative approach here by removing only those commands which could not possibly return true.

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-09 Thread Venky
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:15:56AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: Of those you just mentioned, it might be worth keeping sun4m for awhile, since AFAIK Solaris 9 (last that could run on sun4m) is still supported, and thus a script might exist such that it would still be true on Solaris 9

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-09 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:15:18PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: d) every bit costs something. to compile, to link, to deliver. [...] There's also a run-time cost. Anyone who's browsed for executables to open media content with from Firefox will have observed that browsing /bin borders on the

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread Casper . Dik
The same script will fail on Ububtu as well - I just checked they don't exist there. if vax; then will fail whether vax exists with one or with vax not present. Whether -e is set is not important. Other than the additional errors the script will continue to run. Casper

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread Venky
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:44:47PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: On 08/06/2010 13:14, Steve McKinty wrote: If I wrote a portable configure script which contained something like: if [ vax ]; then do vaxy setup else if [ u3b ]; then do ATT setup else if [ sun ]; then do Solaris setup

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread James C. McPherson
On 8/06/10 07:59 PM, Steve McKinty wrote: Why are these not relevant? In my experience they are mostly used in scripts and Makefiles, to ensure that the right code path is taken. Won't removing them break older configure-style scripts, i.e. ones that test things like if [ ! vax ] etc.? Is the

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread James C. McPherson
On 8/06/10 10:33 PM, James Carlson wrote: Steve McKinty wrote: If I wrote a portable configure script which contained something like: if [ vax ]; then do vaxy setup Obviously, that should be if vax; then rather than with the test brackets, but otherwise I think Steve McKinty has a very

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread Garrett D'Amore
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:59 +0200, Steve McKinty wrote: Why are these not relevant? In my experience they are mostly used in scripts and Makefiles, to ensure that the right code path is taken. Won't removing them break older configure-style scripts, i.e. ones that test things like if [ ! vax ]

Re: EOF legacy processor type truth values [PSARC/2010/211 FastTrack timeout 06/15/2010]

2010-06-08 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:03 -0700, Scott Rotondo wrote: Several people have pointed out that the harm from removing these commands isn't that great because (a) recent scripts tend not to use this mechanism to figure out the type of platform, and (b) older scripts will still