As a followup, we could rename the project 'Open Package Management'
On 5/5/07, Steve Stallion <sstallion at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about OSW (Open Software) ?
>
> Its to the point, its short (so it can be used as a vendor prefix) and
> is currently unused.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 5/5/07, Dennis Clarke <blastwave at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
