[ksh93-integration-discuss] libcmd must die [PSARC-EXT/2006/561 Timeout: 09/05/2006]

[Joseph Kowalski]

It was approved.  (The delivery was slightly broadened and the phasing
removed in the final, approved spec., but the end state is the same.)

We are implementing as we speak.

- cheers,

- jek3

> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:09:07 +0200
> From: "I. Szczesniak" <iszczesniak at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] libcmd must die [PSARC-EXT/2006/561 
Timeout: 09/05/2006]
> To: Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at eng.sun.com>, Korn Shell 93 
integration/migration project discussion 
<ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org>
> Cc: PSARC-EXT at sac.sfbay.sun.com, Rod.Evans at sun.com, roger.faulkner at sun.com, 
don.cragun at sun.com, roland.mainz at nrubsig.or
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-disposition: inline
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;        s=beta; d=gmail.com; 
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-t
ype:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; 
b=Bj/UEukcZaBsklzawIFJW1irqjVRWhtHp/V8pkpENGOp/pHp21VnMlZYlwdu1pXjPjFNggupjoz0V6
r166HLE+5UCDjhTX0xxuWQYufMYU39Oad6i+C7rzw1dwQUV+SIfvXoez7ntNRze5Kkd4EFq1Qw9ZXstF
YaXQyifgkg8LU=
> X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
> 
> On 9/29/06, Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at eng.sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > Please ignore what appears to be another initial posting of this case
> > automatically generated by the tools.  It will only be seen by some of
> > you.
> >
> > I'm sponsoring this case for myself.  It is the proposed resolution of
> > the libcmd collision issue associated with PSARC/2006/550.
> >
> > Note, that dispite the fact this discussion was characterized as "dumb",
> > the resolution is so simple as to almost qualify for "Closed Approved
> > Automatic".  The only reasons I believe it doesn't is that it actually
> > established an interface taxonomy level for the def*() routines and
> > proposes to be allowed to integrate as two separate integrations rather
> > than the single integration standard applied to all ARC cases.
> >
> > For those unfamiliar with "Closed Approved Automatic", it is for cases
> > where the implementation follows well defined practices used be previous
> > projects and the case is strictly to record the name space implications.
> > Its best that this type of submission only be used by ARC Professionals
> > (do not attempt this at home).
> >
> > This case times out on Thursday, October 5th, 2006.
> 
> Was this case approved or not?
> 
> Irek