I was not referring to sponsors -- the work of making star compatible
with tar(1) when executed as tar is yours to do, and much of the other
work is yours too, but if you do this as someone outside SWAN then
you'll be getting a sponsor to help with certain tasks (and either way
you'll need
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
OpenSolaris
I am happy to do so but please note that:
Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood the
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As an example, you might check for compare. This is a program I
maintain since 1984 that is similar to cmp(1).
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp faster? Why the
need for a functionally-similar (identical?) but new utility?
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As an example, you might check for compare. This is a program I
maintain since 1984 that is similar to cmp(1).
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp faster? Why the
need for a
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As an example, you might check for compare. This is a program I
maintain since 1984 that is similar to cmp(1).
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp faster? Why the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
For this reason, compare is used on a dayly base, something that does not
apply
to e.g. imagemagic.
Depends on the usage of the system.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
source form cmp(1) ? As some other OpenSolaris contributor has already
done. I personally think this would
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
source form cmp(1) ? As some other OpenSolaris contributor has already
done. I
On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
OpenSolaris
I am happy to do so but please note that:
Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood the
request-sponsor process to be working reasonably
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As an example, you might check for compare. This is a program I
maintain since 1984 that is similar to cmp(1).
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp
I'm confused: Why not just submit patches to make cmp
faster? Why the
need for a functionally-similar (identical?) but new
utility?
Now that's a good idea!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe Paul was suggesting that you could *now* use the knowledge you
gained in writing your compare(1) to improved the now available in
source form cmp(1) ? As some other
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
OpenSolaris
I am happy to do so but please note that:
Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I understood the
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The better readable output from compare is not compatible with the
POSIX cmp definition
Ooops, you've got to fix that if your compare is to replace cmp(1). Add
an option to output the new style of output. Alternatively see below.
I never
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Simon Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 15:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Once it has been verified that it is possible to contribute to
OpenSolaris
I am happy to do so but please note that:
Do you have reasons to believe this is not the case? I
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
before yours and now you're not happy; c'est la vie). ecmp, fcmp, ...
four letters
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
before yours and now you're not happy;
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
before yours and now
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
something else... :/
This does not depend
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 05:56:49PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Or you could rename your compare to something else that conflicts
neither with the existing cmp(1) nor the new compare(1) (yes, it came in
before yours
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
something else...
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:36:13PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It happened. Oh well. Now you might want to finish the task of
integrating star before someone appropriates that command name for
something else... :/
This does not depend on me as I am ready and waiting sice quite some
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 06:43:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It most definitely does depend on you since noone is getting paid to do
it and noone is volunteering to do it either, which leaves you as the
party with the most interest in
Mark J Musante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
This is akin to saying If I never get in my car, and I never turn
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Mark J Musante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
This is akin to saying If
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It obviously doesn't work then because freshmeat.net lists both star and
ImageMagic.
I see no relation between imagemagic and star. What is your problem?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:24:36PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It obviously doesn't work then because freshmeat.net lists both star and
ImageMagic.
I see no relation between imagemagic and star. What is your problem?
Darren is saying that
Al Hopper writes:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The star integration project started in August 2002.
This is not history; in internet time, this is simply *ancient*
history and is of no interest to me (or most others on the OpenSolaris
project). I'm interested in today and
Joerg Schilling wrote:
It is Sun that is interested in the integration but it also Sun that tries
to prevent it now. I am prepared but there is some work I cannot do.
Sun does neither - it pays engineers to do work, but the corporation doesn't
have opinions like this.Someone at Sun was
Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again - you keep making accusations and you have yet to request a
sponsor to begin the actual integration. Stop foisting FUD on the
OpenSolaris project with these unfounded accusations.
I see accusations from several people here but not from me.
From a
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If integration only works with help from Sun employees and if Sun
employees do not help, star integration will never be able to happen.
This is akin to saying If I never get in my car, and I never turn the
key, then the car will never start. It's
In any event, none of that is OpenSolaris, nor does it establish any
precedent here, and the prior inclusion of ImageMagick in /usr/sfw
*does* establish precedent, so I think LSARC made an entirely proper
decision on this apparent conflict, preferring the popular and
expected usage rather
Do you like to ignore that my compare is genric and thus correctly using
the name and that it is 20 years older than imagemagick?
I think it is hardly relevant.
I do not remember hearing of it before and without any evidence of more
than marginal usage (say part of one or more mainstream
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Now it seems that my warning has been ignored and /usr/bin/compare on svn_77
appears to be a program from ImageMagick that illegally uses the name
compare.
What law, rule or policy does this violate? ImageMagick was ARC approved,
no other program named compare has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this reason, the compare from imagemagick either needs to be=
renamed
or it needs to be put into a different directory.
Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare =
command;
why don't you rename yours?
Looks like you are unwilling to
On Dec 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Why should I rename that exists in the public for a long time just
because
some uncooperative people reused the name?
It's really irritating that ImageMagick grabbed command-line namespace
this way. It's worse than you think, Jörg:
Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of
proclaiming things.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being
reasonable.
I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I have
yet to see an answer, so I'll be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this reason, the compare from imagemagick either needs to be=
renamed
or it needs to be put into a different directory.
Your compare command gives a name clash with ImageMagick's compare =
command;
why don't you rename
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stop replying unless you are willing to have a discussion instead of
proclaiming things.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You are the one proclaiming and accusing. I think I am being
reasonable.
I've tried to ask the question more politely several times, but I have
You
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as it it impossible to implement the arc decisions in OpenSolaris,
OpenSolaris cannot evolve.
ARC does not decide as much as approves, approves w/ TCRs or denies.
But projects approved by the ARC are often implemented so to claim
that
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jörg seems to want the ARC and c-teams to use a different method than
they use today for deciding when some utility (or library, or whatever)
name is a conflict with another existing one.
I recommend that
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:04:28PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Everything is ready for a long time and waiting for integration.
The SFW makefile system is undocumented and idiosyncratic
and it does not seem to support all I need.
If the makefilesystem is usable, somebody just kows how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was unaware of the existence of your compare until today.
Just to be different, I'll admit that *I* knew about the problem quite
a while ago. I knew about the problem only because these two programs
once duked it out over the right to be '/opt/csw/bin/compare' if you
43 matches
Mail list logo
