James Carlson wrote: > Roland Mainz writes: > > It just doesn't feel good because I hoped to do a putback in the B51 > > timeframe - but it seems this option is now gone thanks to the CTF > > problem... ;-( > > Build 51 closed on October 16th. We're on build 54 now -- open until > November 27th.
Quick look at http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/ - the latest source I have access to is B51 (so far the ksh93-integration prototype004 tree only has some tiny "soft" conflicts in B52 and no "hard" ones). > Roland Mainz writes: > > > Of course, other consolidations have looser rules, so once again, you're > > > hitting higher obstacles because you fought so hard to go into ON. 8-) > > > > Yes, yes, my fault... but if we want to replace /usr/bin/ksh we have to > > follow the strict OS/Net rules or will never succeed with that project > > goal. > > That's not strictly true. > > There's no reason at all that /usr/bin/ksh couldn't deliver from some > other consolidation, either now or in the future. In fact, I think > it'd be really nice if it did, because we could delete a bunch of > bloat from ON. Grumpf... remeber we had THAT debate a while ago ? *grumble* > Don't confuse either delivery location (/usr/bin) or stability or some > notion of "goodness" with consolidation. Things that go in a > consolidation are things that share build rules, extensive private > interfaces, and patch construction. If it doesn't look like that, > then it doesn't need to be the same consolidation. Remember that ksh93 is scheduled to replace ksh in the future and that we have more plans to use ksh93/libshell/libcmd's interfaces within OS/Net. Putting ksh93 in a different consolidation would make this much more difficult... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
