Roland Mainz writes: > 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
I'm glad that there is such a project. They, however, have not submitted anything to the ARC for the review, and thus, as I stated above, that project is *NOT UNDER REVIEW*. The ARC reviews projects that submit materials for review. We don't go out trolling for new things that we could review, nor do we normally try to guess at the requirements they might one day have. > 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). That's their work to do. They can (and should) submit a case for review, particularly if they need to set a new "Big Rule" for all projects -- such as, say, requiring 64-bit cleanliness. That is *NOT* this case. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
