On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Sriram Narayanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to propose that we move  to rpm5 to give the user the
> following usage experience:
>
> - easy  to use smart package  manager (using yum and  rpm is
> optional)
>
> - the familiar rpm format for the actual package files
>
> -  support  from the  rpm5  and  the smart  package  manager
> community
>
> Reasons for rpm5:
>
> - based wide  spread use on desktop as well  as server grade
> Linux based distros  such as RHEL, rpm works  well and meets
> our needs of a good modern package system
>
> -  I have  managed to  build  rpm5 and  have requested  Jeff
> Johnson,  the  present  rpm5 maintainer  and  developer,  to
> integrate two fixes needed to  build rpm5 on the opensolaris
> platform
>
> - the current  maintainers of rpm5 have given us  a go ahead
> on bundling rpm5 with Belenix [1]
>
> - rpm5 is actively maintained [2]
>
> - it uses modern compression systems and libraries [3]
>
> - it is used by other  distributions as well, who don't mind
> sharing their learning with us [4]
>

I really  do not know, if  you really need a  "binary package"
based approach. The  issue is the variability  of hardware use
here. I have  nothing against "rpm" or  "dpkg" based approach,
but then,  at the end  of the  day, Belenix would  become "Yet
Another Distro" ! Since the userland  s/w is same for all *nix
based OSs, nobody would appreciate the difference.

I  found nothing  wrong with  the "specs"  based system  which
Moinak had used for the  initial belenix development. This can
be easily extended  to a source based  distribution system. My
preference  would always  be  for a  source based  technology,
rather than  pre-compiled binary downloads.  Anything compiled
on your box always works !

Please study the  *BSD ports systems. it would  be the easiest
to  implement  on existing  "specs"  platform.  It would  also
reduce  server requirements  for storing  various versions  of
binaries.

For those, who  have not used FreeBSD/ OpenBSD  etc, "port" is
a  technology  used  to  install from  source.  Each  Port  is
a  collection of  scripts  that  when executed,  automatically
download  source  of  softwares from  the  Internet,  patches,
configures  if   necessary,  compiles  and  install   it.  Any
dependencies  on other  applications or  libraries a  port may
have are also installed for the user.

Like  binary  packages   and  ports  understand  dependencies.
Suppose  you  want  to  install an  application  that  depends
on  a  specific  library  being installed,  the  ports  system
automatically installs the library first.

Each port,  or software  package, is  maintained by  a “port
maintainer”, an  individual who  is responsible  for staying
current  with  the  latest software  developments.  Anyone  is
welcome  to become  a  port maintainer  by contributing  their
favourite piece of software  to the  collection. One  may also
choose  to adopt  and maintain  an existing  port that  has no
maintainer-ship.

This brings in better  contribution and participation from the
community. You would notice,  binary "packages" are invariably
the handiwork  of a  core group,  thus creating  an artificial
divisions of "developers" and "users".

Having  things this  way, would  reduce the  work of  the core
group at developing a base install  with minimal X with a full
gcc based development environment  and networking support. The
"base" distro would be smaller, and "meaner", but more solid.

Now that Oracle  has pulled the plug on  OpenSolaris, a larger
community support is needed if any fork of the old OpenSolaris
base is to continue.

Just another view,

Bish
_______________________________________________
belenix-discuss mailing list
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss
http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss

Reply via email to