On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:44:47PM -0800, Chris Quenelle wrote: > This case is not proposing to deliver multiple compilers into Nevada, > and it's not proposing to create infrastructure in case we need to start > delivering multiple versions later.
Er, "bundled" has heretofore meant "integral part of the larger product," and the larger product is "Nevada" in this case. > If you can help us establish that this should be a requirement, then > we can fill in the details of how to do it in a sane way. > But the delivery of multiple versions doesn't seem to be required > by the current business justification in the case: > > 3.3. Business Justification: > Encourage FOSS inclusion into OpenSolaris repositories by > minimizing compiler-related porting effort. > > Provide a bundled set of compilers for any distribution of Solaris. > > Please back up a step and help me understand why we need to deliver > parallel versions through Nevada, and not just through our existing channels. Typically a requirement for multiple versions results from a rate of incompatible change in the bundled product that is too fast relative to the larger products releases. If no part of the compilers are needed at runtime, or if those parts that are are very stable, then there's no need for multiple versions. The rate of incompatible changes to interfaces needed at compile time might still be a problem if too fast, but I also doubt that's the case here. So, looking at it from that point of view there's no need for multiple versions. Of course, looking at it from the point of view of how many Sun Studio versions we've used in Solaris 10 and Nevada development, we know that multiple versions are likely going to be needed. But at least for Solaris consolidations a single bundled version translates into: more build flag days or a need to use the unbunbled versions. Nico --
