Danek Duvall wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:08:49PM +0100, Roland Mainz wrote: > > > Well, how do the options look like ? > > As far as I can tell, there aren't any good options. There's a tension > between the way ON works and the way that projects not developed for ON > work.
Uhm... that's not 100% correct... we've spend almost the whole time in the last twelve months to adopt ksh93 for Solaris+OS/Net. Much of the bugfixes, cleanup, design changes and quality work&&testing were done exactly because we're targeting OS/Net and it's stricter rules for putbacks. > I don't see any way of resolving that tension, short of choosing > another consolidation. Given how much pain this particular choice of > consolidation seems to be causing, it's not clear to me that the pain of > choosing another consolidation might not be significantly less. Picking another consilidation won't help because the majority of items we'd like to touch in one or another way are in OS/Net. Picking another consilidation would either require to move all these items to the same consilidation, don't touch them (as result we could cancel almost all of the follow-up projects, including the migration of /usr/bin/ksh to ksh93) or invent new rules (or bend existing ones) to match the situation of complex inter-consilidation dependicies (AFAIK we really won't try to do that since the amount of paperwork will even be bigger than our current pile). > My own > tendencies lean towards, "When in ON, follow ON rules as closely as > possible." Agreed. I am looking right into modifying my pullover scripts to handle "missing files" in some way and work with Peter&co. to figure out which files should be removed. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
