On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:02:35AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: > David Powell wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:07:36AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: > > > > And I also suggest we move all ksh93 libaries to /usr/lib with > > > > the needed exception of libcmd. > > > > > > <blink><marquee>DEFINATELY NO</marquee></blink>. At some point we will > > > have followup projects and many of them (like SMF) simply need libshell > > > in the root filesystem because the consumers live there, too. > > > > That's an interesting assertion. Could you elaborate? > > Yes, but it would be nice to start a seperate thread for this because > this is IMO hightly offtopic for this ARC case...
Quite the contrary: this appears to be an important part of your justification for including libshell in /lib, and your justification for including libshell in /lib is an important part of an ARC case that proposes putting it there. > > I know little about libshell, but I'll admit the possibility that it > > offers truly compelling functionality. That said, as a member of the > > SMF team, the fact that SMF "simply needs" libshell is news to me. > > We've been experimenting with some ideas to add things like event-driven > actions and scripting functionlity to SMF. The idea is to have a > dbx/dtksh/tksh-like "shell" interface which contains a couple of > additional things on top of ksh93/libshell, including: This all sounds fascinating, but these projects don't exist yet. They are neither defined by this proposal, nor any other formal proposal submitted to the ARC. We don't know when such changes will happen, or if they will happen at all. There might be good reasons for shipping libshell in /lib (to millions of OpenSolaris users), but the anticipation of possible projects that might someday happen isn't one. Dave
