James Carlson wrote:
> John Plocher writes:
[snip]
> Because I think the out-of-context excerpt in 4.3.2 appears to suggest
> that Sun has the final say here, and not the distributor, and is thus
> quite destructive on the face of it, I would vote against this opinion
> as drafted.
>
> Without that section, I'd abstain. Without a project supporting an
> actual 64-bit-only platform under review,
- There is one "well-known"[1] port of Solaris which runs on 64bit only
hardware - the problem with "under review" is that the work is _not_
done by Sun. Right now they desperately try get the problem under
control by adding "artificial" 32bit support on 64bit-only hardware to
_avoid_ having to cleanup OS/Net+SFWNV themselves. If this attempt fails
then this port is _DEAD_ (unless we find a way to make OS/Net+SFWNV
64bit clean).
- One of the early attemps (e.g. shortly after OpenSolaris.org wass
founded) of porting (Open-)Solaris Nevada to another platform simply
died when the matching company figured out that
1) OS/Net is not 64bit clean
2) the usual reply was "you have to cleanup that yourself, we won't
help"
Guess why that company lost their interest ?
At some point we need more ports to get the "diversity" from which Linux
and the *BSD communities live from - it's not only "packages packages
packages" what OpenSolaris needs - we need the ports, too. And there
we've hit the bottom ("PPC" being "dormant", one dead-born because the
company was scared away (see above) and the only currently active port
is in trouble because of the 64bit issue) and won't make _any_ progress
until the 64bit issue has been solved.
[1]=The name is not public... yet.
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL <currently fluctuating>
(;O/ \/ \O;)
