On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragun <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in <limits.h> for so long > is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value. > > Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the edges for a > few years. Since this is case is departing from more ABI > requirements, should it have a major release binding? Or, should an > opinion be written for this case acknowledging that the ARC knows > that this case violates the ABIs and that the decision to do so is > intentional (without setting precedent to otherwise ignore the ABI)? > > Once upon a time, there was a gang of four working on a > definition of what would be the limits of the changes going into > "Solaris next", whether it would be classified as a major or minor > release, and what would constitute the basis for determining whether > or not an implementation of OpenSolaris would be able to use the > Solaris trademark. Was a report ever produced by the gang? (I know > that at least half of the gang no longer works for Sun/Oracle.) Is > there any current plan to define any type of new Solaris ABI?
I agree with Don that at *least* an opinion must be written for such a change. You will at least break major software like Informix with this change. Irek _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list [email protected]
