Joseph Kowalski wrote: > If the intent was to educate, or prod me into doing so, why did > you ask a number of questions for which you now claim claim > to know the answer?
Yes, I should/could have phrased things better - sorry - my hindsight is slowly getting to be as good as yours, but my real-time delivery still sucks :-) While I could have taken a stab at providing details for each of my points, it was unclear to me what specifically you were driving at with your "as per our FOSS integration process" reference. The problem is that our FOSS integration process is in shambles. Much of 1999/555 and 2000/488 were rendered moot when 2005/185 came thru. Even the minimal expectations in the interface taxonomy (Security, Authentication, File System Semantics and yes, even Man Pages) have also been whittled away bit by bit by recent ARC cases. I don't believe we *want* to bloat our existing source trees with hundreds or thousands of harvested FOSS projects like these. They don't belong there simply because we (the community) aren't the right people to claim that implied level of ownership. We aren't forking these projects; we aren't rewriting them to be part of the (open)solaris ABI, we are only trying to make them available to our consumers without adding much incremental cost and without changing them. The corollary of the above is that because we don't have any intent to make these things part of (Open)Solaris, the rules associated with making things part of (Open)Solaris are suspect. Thus my open ended questions to you - given the state of the FOSS guidelines, the apparent intent of both these projects to be there for our customers, but not be part of the core OS, as well as the ongoing conversations about a future repo based ecosystem, what FOSS Integration rules make sense for projects like these? -John
