Peter Memishian wrote: > > > The one reason I can think of to keep them is that they provide some > > clues about how ksh93 is built using the ATT toolset. So, for example, > > if we run into problems, they provide a comparison point. And if the > > upstream version changes, the diffs for the ATT makefile may be useful > > in constructing the changes to the ON makefile. > > Can't we get the diffs for the ATT Makefiles regardless of whether we have > copies of them lying around in our tree?
What do you mean with "diffs" in this case ? If we follow the update procedure we used for the last dozend updates we make a diff between the old and new AST sources, adjust the paths and apply it. Any "missing" destination files would act like a bomb in this case and we have to manually strip the diff or someone invent a new type of exception handling (renaming parts of the diff files would be slightly easier...). > Same with comparing with how > something is built using the ATT toolset. So I'm not swayed by either of > these arguments. What about the CDDL license header ? All the "alien" Makefiles from AST are clearly identifyable as non-OS/Net because the lack the CDDL license plate. AFAIK the second look at these files should clearly identify them as "alien" (and using Google will lead the matching person to this discussion). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
