Integrate libsane and sane into Solaris [PSARC/2008/170 FastTrack timeout 03/11/2008]

[Joseph Kowalski]

James Carlson wrote:
> Jyri Virkki writes:
>   
>> At some point there's going to have to be either a new intermediate
>> level or some different interpretation, given that neither of these
>> two we have today applies sanely (ha ha) to the vast majority of these
>> open source projects being integrated.   
>>
>>     
...
>> I don't see how that helps.  In fact, I think that'd make things
>> dramatically worse than they are today.  I'm beginning to believe that
>> the only way out of this mess is to eliminate Volatile from the
>> taxonomy, as a substantial majority of the uses of it seems to
>> represent abuse.
>>
>> The underlying issue is that we're consistently misrepresenting our
>> delivered product because of a persistent misunderstanding of the
>> nature of open source itself and of open source development.  I don't
>> think that the ARC can fix this, but it ought to at least put a stop
>> to it.
>>
>> The stability levels have nothing to do with "control" over the open
>> source code itself, and I suspect that's at the core of the
>> misunderstanding.  They have everything to do with correctly
>> representing what we *deliver*.  Those upstream providers don't force
>> new binaries onto our DVDs or web sites; we do that.  We need to
>> document what we're putting there -- or we just shouldn't be in that
>> business.
>>
>> In fact, most open source projects I've dealt with are either keenly
>> aware of the stability issues, or are quite stable and dormant, or are
>> so hemmed in by their own popularity that they can't make incompatible
>> changes even if they wanted to.  Slapping them all with the pejorative
>> "Volatile" label is wrong.  It misrepresents what they deliver and
>> creates havoc for consumers who will be forced by the ARC to prepare
>> for changes that will simply never arrive.
>>
>> Are we just dumping bits over a wall or are we trying to build a
>> system?
>>     
Warning (Will Robinson), hot button pressed (and yes, I know this is 
psarc-ext)!

We *do* seem to want to just dump bits over the wall.  The root cause is 
that we
don't have a repository which can make it easy to grab bits of uncertain 
ancestry
(but still quite useful).  In a sane world, volatile interfaces would be 
the exception
in "core" Solaris, and would be completely baned for libraries or 
utilities which
encourage/support scripting.  The core differentiator of Linux 
(generically) and
Solaris is the stability expected by users.  It seems that at least some 
distros have
headed toward greater stability guarantees while Solaris seems to be 
headed the
other way.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in this (previous "asides" have found 
their way
into multiple cases).

The question is, how do we address this issue.

    - One way would be to really stir up sfw-discuss (and friends).  At 
least this
      would get some of the parties into an open discussion.

    - The only real way is to convince Sun management to spend its 
dollars more
      wisely, or at least order the projects.  This seems to be a 
daunting task.  This
      will only have an effect if the non-Sun contributors voice a view 
on this.

So, speaking of "multiple cases", if anyone feels a need to respond, 
please alter
the subject line so that this does not pollute the case mail file.

- thanks,

- jek3