Joerg Schilling wrote: > Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > > >> 1) Any references about a star option "introduced in 1994" is >> irrelevant. In 1994, star was just one of hundreds (thousands) >> of FOSS programs. Sun/Solaris/PSARC can't track or >> mediate random FOSS programs. >> > > You are referring to a typo, it should read 1985. > And this is significant how? Its before 2004/480. That's all that matters. >> 2) On June 16th 2004 when PSARC 2004/480 was approved, star >> became relevant. This is only an approval for "sfw" integration. >> This doesn't make it a hard rule that star/tar should share option >> flags, but the project team should investigate this, expose the >> issue (if there is one) to PSARC and decide their proposed path. >> PSARC can "yea" or "nea" this. >> > > From 2004/480: > > Anticipated future changes: > - usr/src/cmd/cpio modified to link with librmt > - usr/src/cmd/mt modified to link with librmt > - either usr/src/cmd/tar modified to link with librmt, or star > augmented to be a full replacement for the existing Solaris > tar. If the latter is done, usr/src/cmd/tar would be > removed from ON and the binary replaced with a symlink > to the star executable. At that time, star and ustar may > also move from /usr/sfw/sbin to /usr/sbin. > Good stuff. We (you and I) agree about the "Anticipated future changes". I think we also agree (I hope), that these anticipations should have been considered. (Maybe they were.) "Anticipated future changes" **do not** give future projects (as in new versions of current project) a "free pass".
>> 3) I believe several people have started to work with Joerg on an >> additional fast-track (for star) with a dependency on 2004/480. >> (Hence, only a review of "goodies" Joerg has added since that >> time.) I know Basabi spent some time with this. >> >> Since Basabi was busy, I tried to help. I was unable to get Jeorg >> to produce a proposal I was comfortable with. This was mostly >> about "getting the words right", rather than any serious contentions >> about the content. I think Joerg might have assumed I would >> write it, rather than edit it - not sure. >> > > No, we did aggree on that there is no need to file a new ARC case. I am > curently > working on the integration. > Oh sigh... I'll send the mail messages to you. I'm glad to see that I have no additional work to do on this. >> 4) The fact that 2004/480 wasn't integrated is also (mostly) >> irrelevant. The architecture was approved. If some other >> project team finds that "it was in the way", then some PSARC >> approved remedy would result. (We need not discuss how >> this would be done.) >> > > If Dworkin Muller did not leave Sun, the integration would have been done > already. > Yes. If a cement truck hit you, it also would have been done. >> 5) The fact that 2004/480 specified /usr/sfw/bin/star is relevant. >> That is a reflection of importance of "flag compatibility" (or >> non-importance). >> > > Given the fact that Sun recently decided to prefer to use /usr/bin for > this kind of programs, I see no relevence of the path that has been > mentioned in 2004/480. > HUH? All of the programs being moved from /usr/sfw/bin to /usr/bin have been subject to ARC review. Moreover, this is one of the changes we discussed for an additional case. > J?rg > - jek3
