Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

[H. Peter Anvin]

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That's largely already the case, mostly because there is unfortunately
> > still a fair bit of rubber-stamping Solaris going on.
>
> Don't say that, Peter.
>
> I'm working on the committee now for many years and got most changes I
> (and those telling me their wishes) wanted through.  This is very much
> a technically oriented working group, not political.  In fact, of the
> regular members there are more with stakes in Linux than any of the
> other OSes combined.  If there are problems people perceive they can
> file bugs on the OpenGroup's site
> (http://www.opengroup.org/austin/defectform.html) or tell me about it.

I'm quite aware of that, but I still think Sun has more resources to get 
their particular viewpoint through the committee -- it's just a matter 
of resources at hand.  I myself had to largely drop out due to other 
pressures, for example.

Now, I'm much happier with Solaris being rubber-stamped than some other 
possibilities.  However, it's very easy to sweep concerns under the rug 
by saying "legacy, out of scope."

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/