????? ???????????? writes: > > As someone who's team contributes to both ON and SFW I very much object to > > that allegation we apply the same quality to all our work regardless of what > > consolidation it goes in to. We choose the consolidation we deliver to > > carefully based on the requirements of the component we are working on. > > Why do components in ONNV receive regular maintenance and security > updates and those in SFW do not even receive critical security > updates? > Sun treats the software life cycle differently, based on the choice of > consolidation. The consolidation choice defines the importance of > components and critical software goes into ONNV.
You'll need to pursue your grievances with the updates of various bits of software with the folks charged with updating them. This simply has nothing whatsoever to do with consolidation, and the "policy" you're inferring (and that you've described above) does not and has never existed. > > This alias is not an appropriate place for further discussion of this topic > > though as it is not related to the Perl case (the quality of the upstream > > Perl won't magically change) nor is it actually architectural in nature. > > This alias is appropriate place, the case describes that the project > team will deliver perl 5.10 into SFW instead of ONNV, making this > RELEVANT. > > The project team is free to remove the notion of SFW from this case > and deliver the perl upgrade into ONNV instead. In that case I will > drop my objections. Your objects are not architectural in nature. You've stated that you know something that we don't about the way in which the SFW consolidation is maintained, and that this will somehow affect the quality of bits that are delivered. It's been explained several times now how this is not true, and that it follows from a demonstrably false premise. There are different maintainers for different bits of software. Some are very active. Some are not. Some bits in ON are stale. Some bits in SFW are fresh. There is no special "rule" saying that Sun will spend its money updating ON but not SFW, regardless of what you may have inferred from bugs you've seen, and thus no special reason *based on quality* to prefer one over the other when importing external open source. Your beef is with the maintainers of those stale packages. File bugs and pursue them. Don't claim a priori that separate individuals will do the same. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
