Roland Mainz wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >> I'm sorry. I was supposed to contact you after the last PSARC meeting. >> >> There is no serious fast-track specification for this case. If we are >> unable to proceed with out one. The project team needs to produce one. >> >> At a minimum, such a proposal needs a very clear list of the effected >> utilities and the rationale for the list of effected utilities. >> > > Does that mean I have to make an ARC case for _each_ _single_ _binariy_ > I make 64bit clean ? >
Not at all. We are just asking for a clear specification for which binaries you are proposing to deliver as 64-bit objects. For example, the only mention of bash is in the e-mail subject line. :-) You could also craft the proposal as "this is a blanket case allowing any binary to be produced as a 64-bit ELF". That's probably the best thing to do, but it would certainly be a full case. I alluded to CLIP. Unfortunately, that was read by some as a reference to the actual content. The allusion was about the need for rules and guidelines so that latter changes wouldn't need additional review. As Darren said, we can't evaluate something which isn't clearly described. Also, let's please be careful to not confuse "64-bit clean" and "delivered as a 64-bit object". If it just a matter of making these 64-bit clean, go forth and do so. - jek3
