Hi, On 08/24/09 09:50, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Joep Vesseur wrote: >> On 08/21/09 22:31, John Fischer wrote: >> >> >>> This project proposes to integrate the Environment Modules within a >>> Minor release of Solaris (i.e., Open Solaris). The environment modules >>> provides an easy modification to a user's environment via TCL scripts. >>> These scripts set various environmental variables such as PATH, >>> MANPATH, >>> etc. >>> >> >> I'm not sure my remarks make any PSARC sense, but since there is no >> rationale mentioned for integrating this, I'm inclined to ask anyway: >> >> Does it really make sense to force people into being able to read/ >> write TCL in order for them to configure their shell? I imagine >> that most of the modulefile(4)s would be written by administrators >> (how many of them speak TCL?), but users will have to debug/override >> any settings they want to tweak. >> >> I'm just wondering why we pick a TCL-based configuration tool for >> something like this. If the answer is Linux-compatibility, I think >> there is enough precedent, whether I like it or not. Otherwise, I'm >> not sure that we build a useful architecture here. >> >> Joep >> > > I'm fairly confident that *except* in so far as we are integrating > something which some sites or projects might already be using (and > hence are offering it as a compatibility/familiarity tool), this case > would not otherwise be ready for PSARC to vote on... I think we'd want > to have a lot more scrutiny over a change intended to fundamentally > alter the way user environments are managed. > > So, as a Linux familiarity tool (and I have to take the word of others > here that this tool really is used by enough folks to make our time > spent on this case worthwhile), I'll give it a +1. > > However, I'd have much more grave reservations about making this case > a precedent setting case for the fundamental way user environments are > managed (or that we recommend they be managed.) > > I still remain, at a fundamental level, unhappy that we have no way of > distinguishing to our users, or to our ISV partners, which > technologies we believe are fundamentally architecturally correct and > "first class", and those technologies which we integrated simply to > make us conform more closely to Linux (and which we might elect to > steer users and ISVs away from.) But unfortunately at present we have > no framework to provide this information to the people who need it most. >
There are several levels: 1) release repository with several levels of support for different software in repository 2) contrib repository I tried to find this software in Debian popularity contest, but I cannot identify package name in Debian (too much generic name). Why cannot non-obvious "Linux fam" cases go through contrib repository at first, to see how many users they have? Best regards, Milan
