Cyril Plisko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Keith M Wesolowski > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 09:44:50PM +0300, Cyril Plisko wrote: >> >>> I have a real case here with customer' C++ application that happens to >>> be related to SCSI. They are evaluating support for Solaris >>> Express/OpenSolaris. The offending header file is >>> /usr/include/sys/scsi/targets/stdef.h [1]. The structure member >>> "explicit" breaks compilation with C++. Apparently this is newish >>> code, that was added in rev 5628 [2], so they never saw this with >>> Solaris 10. >>> So does this warrants filing a bug against stdef.h ? >> Yes. The lack of prefixing in most of the SCSI subsystem is nasty >> anyway; the fact that it breaks real-world code is just a good excuse >> to fix some of it sooner rather than later. >> > > I've just got a mail notification that this CR [1] was closed as "Will > not fix". I am little bit surprise with that resolutiuon given that he > consensus on this thread [2] seem to be in favor of fixing the > problem. > > Another thing that bothers me is that despite the fact that I filed > the CR I was never contacted by the person who closed it and I was not > given any reason for closing it this way. I find it somewhat > "unfriendly" way of conducting business. The fact that mail > notification strips the real names and only divulge things like "<User > 1-5BMAI7>" also adds to frustration. It feels like talking to a wall. > > So how can I find out what happened and whom to talk ?
I've responded to Cyrl off-list with more information. However, someone else might want to get him in contact with the right people to talk to about the closing. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
