Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Back on track... Opendos's Not Unix!
In-Reply-To: <199705090636.SAA28004@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970509153638.8636A-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Mr M S Aitchison wrote:

> I think the conclusion is that OpenDOS isn't unix, but should be capable
> of Unix-like features (like spaces in filenames, mixed case), even if the
> user is helped away from using such dangerous unDos-like capabilities.

Agreed! The only thing I'd like to make sure is that it is possible to
have two files with the same name differently cased...

> Okay.  But what *is* OpenDOS meant to be?  Who sets its style? its raison
> d'art? (pardon mon broken French)

Raison d'être? ;-)

> Is anybody official from Caldera actually steering OpenDOS now? Is there
> any organisation to it (as there is with Linux and Freedos)?  If we
> decide it would be nice to produce four versions of OpenDOS kernels,
> is anything Caldera might do in the future going to mess up our plans?
> And how do we decide we've agreed on something??

Generally for such Internet-oriented projects, there's a maintainer for
each large package (like Linus takes care of the kernel and the FSF of
gcc), and patches are submitted to the maintainer for integration into the
package. For the OpenDOS kernel, I guess it would be Caldera. While a
patch (like the LFN one) is being developed, it is taken care of
separately, and with each new releases of the kernel sources, the
maintainers of that patch has to update its patch. That state is to be
kept for the shortest possible time (i.e. the time it takes to have it
running at all, then throw it as a beta option in the kernel (switched
on by #ifdefs)).

Pierre Phaneuf