> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > And the rationale is quite simple -- more code in Solaris == more
> > effort to sustain, support, larger install image, bigger download,
> > generally more "bloat".
> I disagree.
>
> I strongly *suspect* it is less effort to "sustain, support" the
> plethora of FOSS ftp versions by minimizing the changes to that version,
> including a proposed "wrapper" implementation.
>
> I agree with John here.
>
> Let's not make this into a big, <expletive deleted> thread. There is
> clearly nothing wrong about having the multiple implementations.
> Support is an issue, and we have some input, but ultimately. this isn't
> architecture.
>
> (Yea, "size" does matter (image size, download size), but IMHO its in
> the noise.)
Almost agree. My architectural points from the initial submission
of the case were the incomplete specification. And from an ARC
pointing to the business teams perspective, is the project team
engaged with the community and will they remain engaged.
I don't know what's come of the earlier business edict that all
Solaris projects (whatever that means in an OpenSolaris world)
will deliver tests into the test organization.
Gary..
