> Interesting. I could see participants that would offer assistance in
> having IPS support ('cause we'd like to help) and possibly SysV
> support, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest that help
> exists to get other packaging systems supported. It would seem to be
> a significant extension of the original requirements to assert that
> the current contributors support a list of alternatives.
I've been sort of working under the assumption that, if it is relatively
simple to move things from SysV to IPS, it is going to be pretty
straightforward to add bits (heck, even just a scripty wrapper...) to
alien to move data back and forth between IPS and .deb format packages.
There are some potential bug-a-boos with that sort of movement, obviously
- like shlibs not being quite right, etc. - but nothing that I'd been
expecting to be insurmountable.
[I have toes in both the debian and SysV-for-solaris packaging camps on a
daily basis; they're not THAT different.]
If the packaging structure of IPS is anything remotely similar to a
cpio-based or ar based package, folks will probably *eventually* write
direct bridge code that works. Perhaps for small values of "eventually",
even. [If you guys have come up with something totally innovative and
different from everything else out there - well, it might take longer.]
It would be very useful to get a conceptual/technical overview of what the
indiana packaging format is expected to be like. I understand that such a
thing is probably still sort of Super S3kr1t and not yet revealed, but a
little advance warning would give folks in other communities the
opportunity to start doing some advance planning. :-)
--elijah
