On 9/21/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
> Roland Mainz writes:
> > > Well, you'll get the same question, but I wouldn't take that as
> > > "resistance". If the follow-on project truly needs the library in /,
> > > you explain why it can't work with the library in /usr, and the ARC says
> > > "oh, okay".
> >
> > The detail that libshell is being used should be an implementation
> > detail and not something which needs to be explicitly ARC'ed.
>
> I agree with that in part, but the architecturally relevant parts here
> are:
>
> - whether this belongs in the root file system, and
>
> - whether this is intended to end up being used in other projects.
>
> If it were purely an internal implementation detail and following all
> of the usual standards (such as those in filesystem(5)), then it
> wouldn't be an issue here.
>
> > IMO most people who want to write a new project which has dependicies to
> > the boot process would look at the issue, read this discussion and then
> > would simply avoid the usage of libshell at all costs because it is
> > restricted to /usr.
>
> That's just broken.
>
> We don't move things to root on speculation that someone may someday
> like to have it there. There must be a _need_.
>
> Furthermore, if it's really the case that people treat the rest of the
> system as immutable, then that it's a real shame that they're led into
> poor design as a result of that practice, but that's not a
> consideration here.
>
> If it is in fact the case that someone wants to use this shell or one
> of its libraries before /usr is mounted, then we can easily move those
> libraries to root at that time. The work involved is trivial.
>
> > Somehow this is really not what we wanted to archive - we wanted a shell
> > which is feature-rich, (more or less) POSIX-conformant, user-friendly,
> > i18n/l10n-capable and doesn't have any artificial restrictions on it's
> > usage. Putting libshell in /usr/lib instead of /lib simply kills the
> > last item and dramatically reduces the benefits of introducing
> > ksh93/libshell in Solaris.
>
> I don't see it at all. No such special shell is needed before /usr is
> mounted, so the shell isn't needed in root.
>
> If you still must insist, then I think it's time to derail this case
> and have a full review. Placing a new shell (plus a pile of attendant
> libraries) into the root file system isn't an "obvious" change, and
> thus this case no longer fits the definition of a fast-track.
Roland,
I think it is time to face the truth that Sun doesn't want ksh93 in
Solaris. Please cancel this project. It is no longer worth wasting
time here
--
// Martin Schaffstall
// EMail: martin.schaffstall at googlemail.com
\\ //
\X/
