On 9/21/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Martin Schaffstall writes: > > On 9/21/06, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: > > > None of the arguments have swayed us so far and James explained that > > > arguments prefixed with "in the future we may" are best dealt with > > > in future ARC cases when things may be moved around if the need arises. > > > > Is there any argument which has swayed you to accept /usr/bin/ksh93? > > Yes. Just asking for it is enough. I think it's a great idea. Why are you then tearing this project into pieces? If you continue this way then there will be nothing left to integrate.
> > Or libshell? Or libast? I seems that there is no compelling reason to > > accept ksh93 at all > > None of this justifies putting ksh into root. I thought the ARC process is there to watch over long term changes and make sure that projects have the proper long sightedness. If that's the case the shortsightedness to remove /sbin/ksh93 and remove libshell.so.1 from /lib is a paradox which needs to be explained. -- Josh
