On Jan 4, 2008 6:09 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Al Hopper <al at logical-approach.com> wrote: > > > We already have a "rule" that says - the first one to integrate is the > > "leader" and "followers" must deal with the resulting fallout. And > > rule #2 "no one is allowed to block an integration" - whether or not > > they have *plans* for a particular driver or a particular version of > > an improved tar (program). > > Let me comment this in a more general way andnot only driver related: > > Some time ago, we had several attempts to discuss binary compatibility > between different OpenSolaris based sitributions. If we take this for serious, > Sun would have to honor "prior art" from older OpenSolaris distributions > or installations from the community. > > This of course also applies to "any solaris" + Blastwave. > > Isn't Sun creating deliberate binary incompatibilities if a program with the > name "foo" refers to different free software on recent Solaris express vs. > Blastwave if the "first integration" was done at Blastwave much ealier than > in Solaris Express?
No. The only vendor that the overwhelming majority of users, developers, and customers care about is the definition of the binary ABI as published by Sun. There is little, to no point, in trying to honour the work done by prior OpenSolaris distributions when those distributions themselves placed no such guarantee on compatibility, and provided no specific definition of their binary interfaces, etc. I can't even begin to fathom how it would be logical to do so. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
