----- Original Message ----- From: USM Bish <b...@touchtelindia.net> > Moinak Ghosh wrote: > > >> > > Unfortunately GNU > > utilities do not always adhere to these standards and are not > fully > > compatible with their > > UNIX counterparts. > > > I am not very clear on these Standards compliance issues. AFAIK, > these are issues to be complied by the C libraries rather than the > individual pieces which go into the numerous core utilities of > *nix. As regards core C libraries are concerned, the GNU has > been quite meticulous. It follows all relevant standards (ISO C 99, > POSIX.1c, POSIX.1j, POSIX.1d, Unix98, Single Unix Specification). > It is also internationalized and has one of the most complete > internationalization interfaces known. It is definitely 100% > compliant with POSIX and ISO C (and also supports features of > other popular Unix variants (including BSD and System V)) > when these do not conflict with the standards stated earlier.
The interfaces for the utilities - behavioral semantics and syntax of the command line options etc. are also governed by standards like SVID and SUSv3. Internal to SUN there are testsuites that verify compliance to these standards and any non-compliance is a bug. > [...] > > However simply > > replacing OpenSolaris utilities with GNU stuff will break > binary > > compatibility with Solaris. > > > If you use gcc, and specially glibc, 100% compatibility with pure > Solarisbinaries may stand broken, whether you like it or not. The > compatbility is > to be built at more core levels than userland utils and apps ... That is upto the user if he wants to build a custom system he very well can using OpenSolaris. Just get hold of whatever sources and then configure, make, make install. But as a distro BeleniX needs to comply to a certain character and since standards are already set there is no point in breaking them. However another item on the roadmap is the ability to set a certain character during install - whether OpenSolaris like or GNU like. With the Branded Zones project it will be possible to have a complete GNU environment running inside a Zone on a system having an OpenSolaris character. There is a distro called Nexenta that already implements a complete Debian system. It is basically Debian userland with apt and friends and Debian daemons running on top of the OpenSolaris kernel and OpenSolaris libc. > > > [...] > > distros. The Linux Standard > > Base is a recent effort in the right direction but few distros > > comply to it as yet. > > > Distros is NOT Linux. I am a Linux user for a decade, and as of now, > I am on LFS with everything compiled from scratch. Freedom from > all distros, and everything runs, no conflicts ... > > Distros is a different issue altogether. These are merely > compilations of > user space software on distro preferred init systems and layout. > The issues > at conflict here boils down to where binaries are installed, and which > libraries are installed. This accounts for binary software > incompatibilitybetween distros, which is by design, not default ! > In any case, how > inconvenient is this ? > > This is a non-issue for most people, except for folk who want to > marketbinary-only software, and want them to run everywhere. I > strongly feel > that there is NO need for 'standardisation' out here, which > essentially > caters > for closed-source interests. Sources, if distributed can be > compiled to > run from anywhere. Exactly. No issues if are the tech-savvy compile from source guy. I might just as well start with building the kernel and everything above it. But for a non-tech user perspective a distro matters. He may not have the time or skills to fiddle with source and compilers if all he wants is to have a good desktop that gets his job done. And even personally most of the time I find it really boring having to download and build stuff. I'd just grab a latest binary package and install it. But binary package on Linux is distro specific. The trouble here is that an average SuSE user will be completely lost if he is suddenly confronted with a Mandrake system. We do not want to repeat this with OpenSolaris. > > If standardisation at user level is enforced, the essense of > freedom would > be lost. "Your box, your rules". Does it really matter if firefox > or KDE > runs from /opt or /usr ? Nothing breaks really at these levels. > Proponentsof this uniformity is somewhat in line with the Henry > Ford school of > thought: > "You can paint it (Ford car) any colour you like, as long as it is > black!" > The issues are much lower down. Not at the level of user space. Why do you think standardisation will restrict freedom ? Ultimately you are free to do anything with the distro. Just get hold of the sources build and customise in whatever way you want it to be. No one is preventing customization. In my previous job, back in the days when Solaris was closed-source, I had a Solaris test box that I had completely morphed into something else by downloading, building and installing truckloads of open-source software. I even had a different directory layout. Standardisation just provides a base and common denominator for distribution compatibility, stability, maintainability etc. But ultimately full control rests with the user. If he wants to break away completely in a different direction, he is free to do so. In fact I plan to ensure that BeleniX does everything possible to allow maximum customization. And since all the sources are available you just grab the latest OpenSolaris sources and customise your system from scratch. > [... ]> > value proposition that > > sets you apart. But breaking compliance with the base standard > is > > not the right direction > > to go. > > I suppose for Solaris, which has its own established practices, > there is a need for the system to be preserved. But these in no > way would this be affected by core utils which populate /bin or > /sbin. FSH and IS is a much later step after sorting out the levels > of fundamental compatibility issues of 'open, malloc, printf, exit' > and a host of other things which POSIX and ISO address ... > it is not switches or extensions to utilities which are hurdles. > Extras can always be trimmed (if felt redundant or non-confomant). Yes. But Added features do not matter much. Variations in semantics in the common features matter more. OpenSolaris also makes promises on interface stability from one version/release to the next. BTW porting glibc to OpenSolaris is a huge project I guess. > > > > > Having said all this I really like the enhancements in GNU > > utilities, the long options and the > > extensive built-in help. For many cases the manpage is not > required > > at all. So that is where > > the OpenSolaris utilites can be enhanced. > > > > And for the closed source stuff they are few and most can be > easily > > implemented while > > adhering to the specifications in the manpage. These are: > > > > kill, alias, bg, cd, od, pax, read, sed, tail, test, type, > ulimit, > > wait, tr, unalias, umask, printf, > > jobs > > > Of this list 'sed' is the only major issue if GNU stuff is to be used. > If sed is affected so would 'awk' (gawk). These would need major > re-writes. I do feel, that the rest can be used as they are with > 'unwanted' sections commented during compilation. As a base things should conform to the manpages. The manpages have not yet been released with OpenSolaris but they are on the roadmap. Online manpages are available at http://docs.sun.com Regards, Moinak. > > Bish > > > _______________________________________________ > ug-bosug mailing list > List-Unsubscribe: mailto:ug-bosug-unsubscribe at opensolaris.org > List-Owner: mailto:ug-bosug-owner at opensolaris.org > List-Archives: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-bosug >
