[illumos-Developer] Closed-bin accords of the OpenSolaris conference... / was: Re: illumos_145 i386 build status

[Garrett D'Amore]

If sun actually makes that move, then great.  We would probably follow suit.  But right now ast sed isn't ready, whereas fbsd is.  See my earlier email.

Matt Lewandowsky  <matt at greenviolet.net> wrote:

>Garrett, In all due respect, I think choosing FreeBSD's sed is not necessarily the wisest move at this point. Sun indicated that AST sed is their choice to replace the closed sed. I've not seen solid evidence that Oracle's changed that plan. (If there's been more than communications breakdowns, I'd be interested in links.) If/when Oracle actually replaces the closed sed, Illumos would then have to decide whether to ditch its FreeBSD sed (if you choose it), or whether to have a different sed from upstream. The former choice is a waste of time and effort, and the latter goes against "not forking for forking's sake". (Paraphrase, not actual quote.) Roland and Olga have put a lot of work into a project that's been approved by Illumos's upstream (Sun/Oracle), and w which has made many putbacks over its life, and is on a path to a tangible and worthwhile (if nothing more than an implementation detail to most people) goal. Right now, they may be having issues with communication with Oracle. But they're not the only ones; paying customers are too. In my opinion, choosing a different implementation than Sun/Oracle has already favored should be done only if you have good reason to believe that Roland and Olga's work will no longer be accepted by Oracle. I was under the impression that Illumos was going to try to remain as compatible as possible to upstream ON. The best indication given by upstream so far has been that AST sed would be "the" sed at some point. Bearing these two points in mind, this whole conversation seems silly and bordering upon barnshedding. --Matt Sent from my HTC Touch Pro2 on the Now Network from Sprint®.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Garrett D'Amore
>Sent: 8/7/2010 8:01:40 PM
>To: Roland Mainz
>Cc: developer at lists.illumos.org , John Plocher
>Subject: Re: [illumos-Developer] Closed-bin accords of the OpenSolaris conference... / was: Re: illumos_145 i386 build status
>The sed proposal I'm making comes not from Joerg.  I do not feel we need the universe to be ksh93.  FreeBSD sed works, and is the basis for a certified implementation.  So I want to hear technical objections only.
>
>Also, illumos is not bound by any prior decisions that may no longer be relevant.
>
>Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
>>> Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
>>>>"Garrett D'Amore" <garrett at damore.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm planning on importing FreeBSD sed, if there is a reason I should NOT do this, I would like to hear it.
>>>>
>>>>Since the test I was interested in did already pass FreeBSD-sed,
>>>>I know of no issue that could prevent this.
>>>
>>> Roland, Olga, any objections?
>>
>>Erm... I have a few objections:
>>1. I am very unhappy about Joerg pushing something where people like
>>Olga, me or the AT&T folks are currently busy with other things and
>>have explicitly announced this. Instead of giving us some time it
>>_feels_ like we're getting facts while the majority of other userland
>>developers can't object fully or provide an alternative.
>>
>>2. I am concerned about the ongoing splintering of the user interface.
>>Instead of having one more or less integrated user interface from one
>>upstream we're pulling a giant jigsaw from multiple sources together.
>>
>>3. We already worked on getting AST "sed" closer to GNU sed without
>>breaking POSIX/SUS conformance and getting it working as shell
>>builtin. Picking another implementation technically kills that work
>>
>>4. As a _reminder_ for Joeg (this is the part where I am  ANGRY with
>>Joerg for trying to break this): During the first OpenSolaris
>>conference John Plocher invitet a couple of people, including me, John
>>Sonnenschein and a few others (AFAIK Al Hopper was there, too) to
>>discuss the issue of the closed source and getting rid of it as part
>>of the emancipation project. At the end (basically creating an accord,
>>to avoid double-work and a fight about responsibilities) we decided a
>>CLEAR split who is responsible for getting which userland part out of
>>the closed part. The split was:
>>Joerg is getting /usr/bin/tar and /usr/bin/star
>>I, David Korn, Glenn Fowler, Irek Szczesniak and others work on
>>/usr/(bin|xpg[46]/bin)/(tail|tr|sed|od), /usr/bin/printf,
>>/usr/xpg4/bin/sh, /usr/bin/ksh and /usr/bin/pax (this was done to get
>>all POSIX/SUS things and related conformance testing from one upstream
>>with an uniform API, testing and a long term maintaince (AT&T's plans
>>for AST&co. are funded for more than the next decade (and likely
>>beyond)) and commitment plan) from a _cooperative_ _team_)
>>
>>I'm really upset about [4] right now...
>>
>>----
>>
>>Bye,
>>Roland
>>
>>--
>>  __ .  . __
>> (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
>>  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
>>  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 3992797
>> (;O/ \/ \O;)
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Developer mailing list
>Developer at lists.illumos.org
>http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer