One or two comments .. I snipped a lot but left in the context required :
On 5/5/07, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joseph, I mixed together a bunch of your emails, and answer the points below.
>
> > Also, remember, this is now OpenSolaris, so even Freeware is ambiguous.
>
> Agreed. (Freeware is out for a couple reasons. Mainly because Freeware
> isn't open source.
The term "freeware" means about as much as "shareware" these days.
Stick with "open source" because we all know what that is.
> They are basically integrators, taking pieces from a variety of other
> sources. OpenSolaris.org on the other hand, primarily develops the
> pieces, with integration almost being either an unspoken given, or an
> after thought.
Blastwave takes sources from other places and projects and then
builds the compiled results with Sun Studio 11 ( or 8 or 10 or GCC in
a pinch ) and ensures that no dependency gets left behind. This is
"integration" because those resultant packages must work on Solaris 8
and 9 and 10. We need to make a bit of a break from the past here with
OpenSolaris. When I say "break" I do NOT mean that we break what
works well.
More on that later.
> Eventually, I would like to see OpenSolaris ship two distributions. 1)
> OpenSolaris Enterprise Edition, and 2) OpenSolaris Community Edition.
OpenSolaris revelas and exposes sources. If there are
distributions they are from Sun Microsystems Inc. and NOT
OpenSolaris.org. Would you please stop talking about distributions
from Sun. We re not even remotely authorized to speak about how
Solaris gets built or what goes into it. The distributions that we
call OpenSolaris Community Release ( snv ) are built at Sun by Sun for
Sun and not by any community organization outside the Sun firewalls.
Drop the references to the OpenSolaris distributions being "shipped".
There are no such things in existence and those OpenSolaris
Community release things ( snv or Solaris Express ) have done nothing
but weaken this project. Why do you think that the only real
out-there-in-the-community distros that exist are SchilliX and marTux
and Nexenta? I can not even point at Nexenta because it is a hybrid
GNU/OpenSolaris thing but at least it is a community project.
Am I getting through here loud and clear ? It this signal distorted?
The source to whatever OpenSolaris is resides at OpenSolaris.org
and that does not mean that any distribution is released from there.
That is the job of vendors that base their distro on those sources.
Like Sun Microsystems Inc for example as well as SchilliX which was
the first ever real OpenSolaris distro.
> Inititially these two distros, will probably be identical. (They may
> even be further broken into server/desktop, but I think that would
> best be an install option)
Not our business.
> > I don't have a good name suggestion. Sorry 'bout that.
>
> I think what we are talking about is either, "integration",
> "packaging", "bundling" or "distrib". (Or something similar along
> those lines)
Let's just think in terms of what I know works. We are talking
about a single unified community based open source software
integration service that provides standards compliant software
packages to be readily installed into any OpenSolaris based
distribution. In order to achieve that we need to spec out some
standards and then ensure that an electric fence is set up around
them. We work within them and we provide and distribute the software
and the sources based on them.
This process has worked incredibly well for years with Blastwave.
> I think "packaging" is my first choice.
Good term but ... I think that "integration service" is a better term.
We need to provide more than just a "package".
> > Merging the communities is an ARC-free move - just do it.
>
> Ok, I'll talk to Eric B. about setting up a new mailing list, once we
> agree on the name.
I'll come back to that.
> > > 7) Sun should start giving credit to contributors. (Ian)
> > Its been discussed a lot already and is really a separate issue. You've
> > got enough
> > here that it really should be kept separate.
> >
> > However, it is an issue (which may have stalled). Start with Simmon on
> > this one.
> >
> > Actually, I wonder if this is Sun's to decide. I *think* its something
> > in the CAB approved development ruleset. I suspect the CAB can
> > revise it. (The whole idea was for Sun to put a stake in the ground,
> > not that the stake couldn't be moved.)
>
> Agree that this is a separate issue.
>
> Could someone who is knows someone at SuSE, RedHat or Ubuntu please
> reach out and see how they handle it. You are right it is a Sun issue,
> but that doesn't mean OpenSolaris can't set it's own standard.
> Finally, I think that the contributor agreement, should have a section
> regarding wether or not, and how, one wants to be acknowledged. (Maybe
> someone want sto be anonymous.)
Generally a package maintainer is reffered to as the "maintainer"
and that works well at Debian and Blastwave. Its open for discussion
and not a show stopper anyways.
> >> - When appropriate blastwave maintainers will also maintain SFW
> >> - Blastwave will continue to maintain unstable S11 packages
> >Nit: last two bullets could be less ambiguous.
>
> Ok. How about?:
>
> - Leverage the experience of the Blastwave package maintains. They are
> already familiar with the packages, package authors, and stability.
> They would be natural candidates for maintaining stable OpenSolaris
> packages.
and the infrastructure for creation, testing and delivery is in
place already.
> - The S11 branch of blastwave will follow the OpenSolaris pathing and
> packaging standards such that the full blastwave tree could be
> considered the unstable repository/branch of the OpenSolaris
> distribution.
>
> > With this many inclusions, I don't even know who I'm responding to, but
> > why is the goal "to be integrated into OpenSolaris". Is everything FOSS
> > integrated into Red Hat, SuSE or Windows?
>
> No. As you mentioned early OpenSolaris is FOSS, and is not integrated
> into Linux. (Also forget Windows, it's irrelevant to this discussion,
> as most FOSS software is ported to MS as an afterthought.)
>
> Being less literal, a large majority of open source software targets
> Linux, so the integration is for the most part trivial. (Also when we
> say integration, we are in fact referring to making "universe" as
> large as possible.
>
> > > 9) Woo upstream developers and maintainers, to join the cause. This of
> > > course would be limited to smaller projects. (Once we have a coherent
> > > procedure and policy in place.) (Brian)
> > Why "of course limited to smaller projects"? I simply don't understand.
>
> rpm is supported on *ALL* Linux distros. Therefore, RPMs are the natural
> choice for distribution. I say smaller packages, because they are generally
> maintained by one person. They are also more prone to see more widespread
> adoption of their packages.
>
> > WHO builds the packages?
>
> OpenSolaris participants.
The maintainers inside the infrastructure provided and compliant
with the standards and testing required.
> > WHO distributes the packages?
>
> OpenSolaris.org. If Sun chooses to follow out network based
> distribution method, then Sun would also.
wrong
This is a weak link. The SDLC is a curse.
Mirror sites work and so does automated package installation.
More on this later.
> > WHO supports the packages?
big topic .. more on this later.
Dennis
