On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > Mark Martin writes: > > > How would you be more helped by an external repository that doesn't > > > have Alpine in it than an internal repository that doesn't have Alpine > > > in it? > > > > > > > I'll let Alan answer that definitively, of course, but I took it to mean > > had/were an external repository been available, an external contributor > > could have posted the built bits once they'd done the port and build. > > You're assuming that the port was complete, and that the bits in the > port were put into some suitable format (a package) in order to upload > them somewhere.
often times ... as I have seen .. it never gets that far. > It's never as simple as just doing "./configure" and "make." If it > were, then there'd really be no point in having a repository at all, > as *anybody* can do that. bingo > It's often the case that you have to chase down incompatible sets of > libraries, features that crash and burn on the system you're porting > to, unclear (or ugly) sets of deliverables, and other such issues. > It's non-zero effort, so I find the idea that the big "hurdle" that > needs to be crossed here is really just the distinction between SFW > procedures and some to-be-named-later "free-for-all" consolidation to > be a bit fanciful. well I think that a wild wild west show is the wrong way to go but you need to have a very low barrier to entry in order to allow people to contribute. Make any work at all, even a little, and they tend to not do anything. OKay, some people, some nut cases, will work around the clock to get things done for other people but those people are just the low probability case :-) > It doesn't match anything like my experience. And I don't believe you > can make those assumptions based on the evidence provide. I'll nod at that. <skip snip> > I think "FOSS" is a red herring here. > > The problem is with projects that duplicate effort, no matter how they > do it or where they find the source or what license it may have. ahhh well now. You can not stop duplication. It happens and if you reach into far flung places with your OS then you will get people all over the place duplicating stuff. No way to stop that really. > The > ARC-specific answer to this is to ARC early and ARC often. As soon as > you have the inkling that you're going to port something, file a case. > > The non-ARC question being asked here is (probably) "should we have an > external project request/signup dashboard?" I think that'd be great > to have. dirt simple easy to do too. ( I may just do that ) > > For the 3rd case, I suppose you can simply announce your intention to port > > FOSS project Y on some list and if no one responds in a timely manner, > > proceed as the singular trailblazer and again, put it into unstable (or if > > intending Big Rules integration, see #1 or #2). > > If it's a secret project, there'll be no announcement. I think that, > as an OpenSolaris matter, "secret" projects are on their own. I wish > 'em luck, but I see no need or reason for the community to coordinate > any of its effort with anyone who isn't part of the community. well gee ... you can always hold the door open and let them walk in. If they choose to not walk in .. they may still be a community member. Not sure how you define community. > > What's the expectation for a "contributor" (grant or no) who wants to > > scratch an itch and then make it available for others via a > > Use-This-if-You-Dare repository? > > Given that we have no such repository, I think establishing the > repository in question (and the rules that govern it) is probably the > first important task. It's hard to say what the expectation might be > for a process that doesn't exist. I may have some input there. Dennis
