Darren J Moffat wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> I am sponsoring this case for myself and the Vino project team. >> I have marked it closed approved automatic - speak up soon if you object! >> This case requests a patch release binding. > > I don't think this meets automatic approval, I'd prefer to see it run as > a fast-track.
Okay, timer set for one week from submission, November 7. > This case introduces a second vncviewer client, why do we need this one > and Vino ? Why should this one and not Vino be /usr/bin/vncviewer ? This case supersedes the one in which Vino delivered the simple shell script wrapper around the Java applet Vino provides for users to download over http from another computer, so Solaris/OpenSolaris will only have one vncviewer at a time. This was initiated by community request for a more full featured vncviewer than the stripped down java applet version: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=41087&tstart=60 and to ease delivery to an update release of Solaris 10, which does not have Vino. The Vino team is in favor of this as you can see in the above thread. > I also don't think Volatile as the only classification for a vncviewer > is acceptable - particularly given that it is a core component of how > xVM is used and tools like virt-install(1M) need to call it. I had no idea virt-install called it - there was no objection to Vino's vncviewer script being Volatile with no documentation of the arguments in the previous case, and no contracts listed in that case for anyone to depend on the vncviewer interfaces. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
