Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Ravi Srinivasan Subject: Re: Contracts for Veritas To: Shudong.Zhou@eng.sun.com, Ravi.Srinivasan@Sun.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-MD5: nLGQ4/xtSomQSXMMlrCwgA== Thanks Shudong for the quick response. I've reviewed the contract for devfsadm. It looks fine and the case no.for this is 2002/421. I have just one question however...If I understood correctly, the interface table consists of all functions and macros that the Partner can use to develop their devfsadm loadable module which they initialize and load using di_devlink_init() and unload and cleanup with _fini routine correct? ( Pardon me for my ignorance ) - Ravi S. >Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:00:10 -0700 (PDT) >From: Shudong Zhou >Subject: Re: Contracts for Veritas >To: Shudong.Zhou@eng.sun.com, setje@smack.eng.sun.com, szhou@billybob.eng.sun.com, Ravi.Srinivasan@Sun.COM >Cc: Johnny.Hui@Sun.COM, ravi.srinivasan@Sun.COM, csabenor@eng.sun.com, setje@billybob.eng.sun.com, westmore@billybob.eng.sun.com >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-MD5: bXbbgdkWE7MTm9HaQxlDFQ== > >The case numbers are 2002/420 for boot and 2002/421 for devfsadm. >I still need the approval email from you on both cases. > >Shudong > >> >> Shudong, >> >> I'm currently reviewing the ARC text and the actual contract..Do you have the >> PSARC fasttrack case IDs for this one as well as the PROM interface ( the >> third contract )..Can you share it with me as soon as possible? I have >> started the legal approval of this with Supplier management and hence the >> request.. Of course we will wait for the cases to time out before doing >> the final signatures by directors on both sides and the legal folks. >> >> - Ravi S. >> >Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:07:21 -0700 (PDT) >> >From: Shudong Zhou >> >Subject: Re: Contracts for Veritas >> >To: Shudong.Zhou@eng.sun.com, setje@smack.eng.sun.com >> >Cc: Johnny.Hui@Sun.COM, ravi.srinivasan@Sun.COM, csabenor@eng.sun.com, >> setje@billybob.eng.sun.com, westmore@billybob.eng.sun.com >> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >> >Content-MD5: vcd7ZnGjmuLr5MX2whxsKw== >> > >> >Yes, this is how the new contract forms are designed. Note that >> >PSARC is Sun thing and doesn't apply to third parties. We can >> >only manage a contract within Sun. The group responsible for >> >third party relationship can enforce the contract. >> > >> >Note that none of the this are legally binding. It's all based >> >on good will. >> > >> >Shudong >> > >> >> | 1. This contract is between a SUPPLIER of INTERFACES and a CONSUMER of >> >> | those INTERFACES, both of whom are entities within Sun Microsystems, >> >> | Incorporated. >> >> >> >> Do we make a contract with a Sun internal organisation who then make >> >> one with the external consumter? >> >> >> >> -jan >> >> >> > >> > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:45:15 -0700 From: cynthia sabenorio X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: szhou@eng.sun.com Subject: Veritas contracts Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Shudong, Sorry - I burried these.... PSARC 2002/420 devfs interfaces PSARC 2002/421 libdevinfo devlinks interfaces I only noted 2 small items on each that I wanted to check with you on. section 11 devfs interfaces - only support for S9, not S10? libdevinfo - S9 and above - do we want to commit beyond S9? section 15 e-mail alias I don't think I've seen this before. Is it a new standard? If so, should we create the alias and remove the ??? ? Otherwise they look fine to me and I can send an email reply indicating that separately for each whenever you like. Thanks, Cindy