Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:50:42PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > > > >>It would be interesting to empirically determine which libraries are >>most core/key, and use that as a starting point. What I'm thinking is to >>come up with a list from each of the major players. The list being those >>FOSS libraries deemed lacking/absent in Nevada; and the players being >>the 5 popular, active FOSS distros/ports: BeleniX, Nexenta, SchilliX, >>CSW/Blastwave, and pkgbuild (JDS). >> >> > >While an attempt to construct and analyse the library dependency graph >makes a lot of sense, I don't quite understand how you selected these >five bases for that analysis. Nexenta has its own software stack tied >to Ubuntu's; I have yet to hear that they're in any way interested in >diverging from that even if a common library stack were available. >Certainly doing so would hinder their ability to track Ubuntu. >BeleniX and SchilliX seem like logical consumers of this stack, as do >Blastwave, Sunfreeware, and the Companion to the extent that either >support for old Solaris releases is dropped and/or the system library >dependency problem can be addressed. And I can't see any relation to >JDS at all, unless you're suggesting that JDS be removed from the WOS >and thus freed to depend on arbitrary components. > >
Good points. Re "selecting": I didn't intend to sound like I was "selecting" them. (Of course I did intend to start a discussion about them.) Re Nexenta: I'm not sure, but I assumed that they're consumers of at least some core OpenSolaris libraries from /usr/lib; therefore, I assumed they'd be open to maybe being consumers of other "standard" OpenSolaris libraries... Re JDS: Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch. But I do think that given what the JDS developers produce and how they go about doing it, makes them worthy of being "selected" ;-) Eric
