John Plocher wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> As other posts have suggested, we need to decide what the appropriate >> group >> of utilities to do as subprojects is appropriate. > > I disagree that "we == PSARC" for that case. Give guidance, yes, but > it is not PSARC's job to make the final decision.
Agreed. (I guess that parses as I'm agreeing with your disagreement with me. Does that make me "disagreeable"? Uh, don't answer that.) However, I'll also point out this isn't a community decision either. It is a distro decision. >> My "Rome" is all versions of the same basic utilities: */bin/*awk, >> */bin/*grep,... (well, >> maybe an exception for oawk). > > You have already asserted (in the CLIP case) that the GNU utilities are > in a different CLIP 'burb than the Sun/POSIX ones - you can't use CLIP to > justify both positions. > > Either they are the same "Rome", in which case they need to follow > the same CLI design pattern, or they aren't, in which case they > don't need to be treated the same 64-bit way. You are taking this *way* to literal. The point is that there needs to be partitioning. The axis of partitioning is open for discussion. > It's a fasttrack. Times out next Friday. I won't be able to make next > week's Wed PSARC meeting. Thanks. - jek3
