All,

I have spent quite a bit of time talking to many of you offline over
the last several days and I have arrived at a (tough) decision that I
hope will benefit everyone in the long run.

I have decided to close the ports project and refocus my efforts into
working with Dennis et al at Blastwave. There is absolutely no sense
in creating yet another implementation and as I mentioned before would
be irresponsible and just add to the confusion.

That said, it has been nice to see the amount of cooperation on the
lists this last week between the community and Sun. The problem has
most certainly identified, now it is up to all of us to answer those
needs.

Thank you to everyone whom have taken the time to speak with me, and
to those who were willing to comment on the document and the ideas
presented within.

Sincerely,

Steven Stallion

On 5/14/07, Steve Stallion <sstallion at gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely. That was a big goal in the proposal, even if it was not stated.
>
> Essentially a pre built package was a package built by pkgbuild with
> the default options.
>
>
> On 5/14/07, Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Steve Stallion wrote:
> >
> > > Danek/All,
> > >
> > > I would like to see a couple of high level requirements added (I am
> > > not sure of the appropriate bullet points to place these under) to
> > > this list:
> > >
> > > 1. Users should have the ability to install the same bit of software
> > > either by source or by a pre-build package.
> > >
> > > 2. Installing a source-built package should allow for customization of
> > > options (similar to pkgbuild now).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I think they're great goals, but Stephen and I are trying to separate the
> > build system from the packaging system.  The idea is that the two would act
> > as two pieces in a pipeline to the final product, either of which would be
> > interchangeable.  Thus pkgbuild could feed into the packaging system, yet
> > be independent.  Heck, maybe even "make install" could.
> >
> > Danek
> >
>

Reply via email to