I. Szczesniak writes: > On 4/11/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I. Szczesniak writes: > > > I explained this in another mail. Our statistics show that lots of > > > customers do not have SUNWxcu4 installed. The system scripts do not > > > require this package and customers tend to remove unused packages from > > > their systems. > > > > What would satisfy your complaint? > > Make sure that the tools in /usr/xpg4/bin are treated with the same > level of support as the tools in /usr/bin and merge the SUNWxcu4 > package into SUNWcsu.
I'm confused. They *do* have the same level of support. Can you explain why you think they're supported differently? Is it just the fact that the package is optional? Is all optional software "less supported" in this view? > > We could make the system less configurable by forcing SUNWxcu4 into > > SUNWCmreq or by just removing SUNWxcu4 and putting the binaries into > > SUNWcsu. Would that help? > > It would help if system scripts use /usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/bin as their > default path. This would at least ensure that such scripts will work > with multibyte locales. You can do that today. Now, what those scripts are doing with multibyte locales is a bit of a mystery to me. I had thought that was an issue for user processes, not system scripts. > > If not, then just what are you asking for? To have /usr/bin change > > incompatibly? > > I don't think this will happen without a major shift to a more > customer-friendly policy at Sun. We obviously have different notions of what "friendliness" entails. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
