[ksh93-integration-discuss] some questions about ksh93 integration

[Roland Mainz]

Dan Price wrote:
> On Wed 23 Aug 2006 at 02:27PM, Felix Schulte wrote:
> > On 8/23/06, Dan Price <dp at eng.sun.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I've been following this project, although I just joined the
> > >mailing list.
> > >
> > >I have a couple of questions regarding the shape of the
> > >project:
> > >
> > >        - What is the nature of the replacing of libcmd.so?  If I'm
> > >          not mistaken, I noticed that the existing libcmd.so is
> > >          being overwritten by the tarball which was recently
> > >          published.  I wondered why that would be.
> >
> > All the functions in Solaris libcmd.so have been ported over to the
> > ksh93 libcmd.so which will replace the Solaris version
> 
> Why are we intermingling "native" and "non native" code together
> in one library?  That seems like a suspiciously non-architectural
> solution to a name collision.  Is there a real rationale here?

Please take a look at my previous email.
IMO this solution is pretty strightforward since it keeps the binary
compatibilty to BOTH versions of libcmd.so alive, something which is
mandatory for a backport to Solaris 10.

Another interesting posting may be the "tourist guide" to the
ksh93-integration prototype002, AFAIK that was
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ksh93-integration-discuss/2006-June/000432.html
(but I cannot verify that URL right now - mail.opensolaris.org seems to
be down... ;-( ).

> It would seem to me to make a lot more sense to move the existing (in
> Solaris) libcmd.so over to libcmd_private.so (or fold it into libuutil
> or some such), and update the consumers.  Since libcmd is undocumented
> and private, this should be straightforward (although it might be
> possible that there is some libcmd proliferation into JDS or CDE
> or other places, which would be good to cleanse anyway).

Umpf... I really cannot cleanup all other mess generated by other people
- the days only have a limited number of hours and most of my free time
was occupied to implement all requests, ideas, comments, suggestions,
bugfixes etc. for the ksh93-integration prototype002 (we already had the
"anniversary" of the 400th commit to svn.genunix.org where the
ksh93-integration prototype is hosted).
The current solution for libcmd based on Sun's prefernce for
backwards-compatibilty and MANY MANY other issues were addressed this
way, too. Just renaming the Solaris version of libcmd.so and annouce a
"flag day" isn't even 5% of the work which would need to be done (and I
expect around three/four months/engineer to get that propperly done).

> > >        - Which consolidation is this project targetting?  I
> > >          understand that ksh93 has its own build system, and
> > >          I was wondering which consolidation would best accomodate
> > >          that uniqueness.
> > ksh93 is integrated into the Opensolaris consolidation
> 
> [Alan's reply noted]  Anyway, I assume you mean "OS/Net"?  Or
> do you mean SFW (which is, for example, where bash, tcsh and
> zsh live).

We're targeting OS/Net for a couple of reasons (see my examples in my
other postings).

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 7950090
 (;O/ \/ \O;)