LSARC/2008/076

Mon Feb 25 11:11:41 PST 2008

John,

Usually one obtains a sponsor for a FastTrack in advance, by mutual  
agreement.

I'll raise this case at LSARC business tomorrow.  If it has no  
objections, we'll approve it (assuming ARC members have read it).

I'm not a Solaris guy, maybe another LSARC member can chime in here on  
the namespace/package name issue.

Lloyd

On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:55 AM, John Downing wrote:

> Lloyd:
>
> The case owner/sponsor has not been assigned to me.  Can I do that  
> or does someone else
> need to do it?  Also I'm not sure if there was something I needed to  
> do make this a FastTrack
> review.  I've read documentation saying that I need and ARC member  
> to be the sponsor but
> I do not have that.
>
> And do I need to reserve namespace for the package?  I currently  
> have it named SUNWlibao.
>
> I agree about the HTML files but I wanted to make sure it wasn't a  
> problem.  They are currently
> being included in the package in /usr/gnu/share/doc/libao-0.8.8.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>> John,
>>
>> Your case is LSARC/2008/076 eg http://sac.eng/arc/LSARC/2008/076/
>>
>> Was a case owner/sponsor ever assigned to you?  There is none  
>> listed in the IAM file.
>>
>> I don't know why it didn't show up for last week's meeting; we  
>> discussed all open FastTracks at that time and our meeting notes do  
>> not mention the case.
>>
>> There has been no discussion of this case in email.  I will raise  
>> the case during ARC business this coming Tuesday 2/28. As there has  
>> been no discussion, I expect we will approve it.
>>
>> Regarding HTML files, IMO they should be included.
>>
>> Lloyd
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:50 AM, John Downing wrote:
>>
>>> John:
>>>
>>> I am wondering if there is anything I need to do make sure this  
>>> process is continuing.  I have
>>> not heard from the LSARC chair and I am don't if I have completed  
>>> all of my obligations for
>>> the case.
>>>
>>> Also my manager has mentioned that after the case's expiration  
>>> date that the case is approved
>>> by default.  Do you know anything about that?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> John Downing
>>>
>>>> This level of detail and discussion should be had with an ARC  
>>>> sponsor
>>>> (see list of licensees, interns and members on the LSARC page),
>>>> and not with myself or Aarti, who, while experienced, knowledgeable
>>>> and all 'round great people :-), are really the support staff for  
>>>> the
>>>> ARCs themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I've Cc:'d the LSARC chair, who can step in and help...
>>>>
>>>> -John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John R Downing - Sun Microsystems Inc wrote:
>>>>> I believe that what I'm doing is very simple, given that 1) is  
>>>>> true.  I have an
>>>>> sfwnv child and I have taken the libao zip file and put it under  
>>>>> usr/src/lib
>>>>> similar to a other open source libraries in sfw.  I unzips,  
>>>>> configures, compiles
>>>>> like all other gnu libraries, does it again for 64-bit, copies  
>>>>> into the proto area
>>>>> and makes a package, SUNWlibao, which installs libraries, header  
>>>>> files and
>>>>> documentation under /usr/gnu.  I have included prototype files  
>>>>> for your
>>>>> inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question I have are about the package itself - should it  
>>>>> include the
>>>>> html style documentation in addition to the man pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> John Downing
>>>>>> There are two "things" that can be reviewed in an open source  
>>>>>> project:
>>>>>> 1) the content of the project itself, and
>>>>>> 2) the way you are going to integrate the project into Solaris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We /assume/ that the FOSS community does #1 by itself just  
>>>>>> fine :-),
>>>>>> so the ARC focus is on #2 - the actions /you/ are going to take  
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> transplant this thing into Solaris, and how well it will fit once
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inception and commitmwnt reviews may be appropriate depending on
>>>>>> the complexity and impact of the integration.  If you are simply
>>>>>> adding another text editor, things might be very trivial;  
>>>>>> however,
>>>>>> if you are adding an admin utility that touches on security (root
>>>>>> privs...), configuration (zones, fma, smf) or installation (pkgs,
>>>>>> zones, upgrade...), it will be more difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For some stuff, it is OK to follow the "linux lead"; for others,
>>>>>> we need to make sure the solaris way of doing things isn't  
>>>>>> obscured.
>>>>>> That's one of the things an arc inception review tries to  
>>>>>> figure out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  -John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aarti Pai wrote:
>>>>>>> John Downing wrote:
>>>>>>>> Aarti:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have read through the materials concerning my LSARC case  
>>>>>>>> and I have two questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.  How do I determine if I need a review or not?  The email  
>>>>>>>> you sent me made it sound
>>>>>>>> optional but I could find no guidelines on how to determine  
>>>>>>>> if one is needed.
>>>>>>> There are 3 types of reviews: Self Review, Fast-track, and  
>>>>>>> Standard review. Guidelines for each of these are
>>>>>>> available on the sac website:  http://sac.sfbay/arc/
>>>>>>> Self Review:  http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-SelfReview.html
>>>>>>> Fast-track:  http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-FastTrack.html
>>>>>>> Standard Review:  http://sac.sfbay/arc/ARC-Review.html
>>>>>>> Feel free to let me know if you still have questions after  
>>>>>>> reviewing the guidelines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.  Since this is a library which comes from the Open Source  
>>>>>>>> community, I would think that
>>>>>>>> an inception review is not needed.  Is this true?
>>>>>>> We are now holding open meetings and making the ARC process /  
>>>>>>> cases available to OpenSolaris /
>>>>>>> open source community. I've Cc'd John to help with this  
>>>>>>> specific question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Aarti
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> Lloyd L Chambers
>> lloyd.chambers at sun.com
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc
>>
>>
>>
>

---
Lloyd L Chambers
lloyd.chambers at sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc