[csw-maintainers] Bugreport on alternatives with NFS-shared /opt/csw

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue Mar 23 12:33:22 -0400 2010:
>
>> Why would we need to ever "upgrade" from upstream? We grabbed the
>> code because the current code, meets our current needs. We do not
>> have a need to "track upstream" with it.  (just as we grabbed
>> GAR. we dont "track upstream" with that. just the opposite)
>
> If it's a globally useful feature addition, we'd be "jerks" for not
> sharing it back.  If the addition of this support wouldn't negatively
> impact the original design environment, then I don't see a reason not
> to give back[1].


oh sure, me neither. I'm only differing on whether we care if they
update THEIR end or not :)



> Since it's code taken from a GPL project, any published changes would
> need to be made available in source form.  It would be _less_ burden
> on us to have it rolled in upstream, since they're already shouldering
> that load.

Although really, it seems like such a relatively small set of
functionality that we actually care about, that we'd probably be
better just tossing it and doing our own implementation in a
system-normal-shell script. already, a good chunk of what we care
about in it, is in "our own code", by virtue of the class action
script wrappers.
What is most useful to us, would be that we match the common user
interface api, rather than copying the backend implementation.