* Milan Jurik <Milan.Jurik at sun.com> [2007-09-13 06:49]: > Enda O'Connor ( Sun Micro Systems Ireland) p????e v ??t 13. 09. 2007 v > 10:49 +0100: > > > Did anyone consider staying with SVR4 and just making the tools work > > properly. i.e a green field site and using SVR4 build a complete > > set of tools from ground up.
Are we talking about the format, the set of interfaces, or the current implementation? Are we including or excluding the patch format, interfaces, and implementation? > Based on all already published info I saw - no in reality. SVR4 is not > broken itself but they think that some new packaging system will solve > their ignoring of feature delivering magically somehow, ignoring the > flexibility of SVR4. "SVR4", in its current implementation of both packaging and patching, is an unsafe, imprecise, and inadequate system. I believe the implementation and interfaces are not worth repairing; I have done maintenance programming and porting in the past, and believe my assessment of costs is rational. As I've said before, we're asking the Install CG to host our exploration, in which we invite others to participate. I am not asking that other efforts in this area be denied, nor am I saying that the goals of this effort are fixed for the duration. (I am resisting scope expansion in certain directions when larger issues of feasibility for this initial phase, however.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
