>>> SUNWgnome-img-editor at 0.5.11,5.11-0.111:20090508T155210Z
>> The package names will be changed "soon"
>
> BTW, there was method in this madness. By the time we first
> integrated GNOME into Solaris, we were already running the 3rd
> window manager (sawmill -> sawfish -> metacity), also, various
> libraries got merged or split all the time (gnome-libs -> libgnome*)
> so we the idea was to simplify our packaging by using stable
> package names that describe the functionality rather than the
> community module name. So {saw{fish,mill},metacity} became
> SUNWgnome-wm and the various platform libs were still in
> SUNWgnome-libs even after they were split in the community.
> There was also a desire to reduce the number of packages delivered
> (CDE was only a handful of packages) because SVr4 packaging
> struggled under too many individual packages (because it had
> to constantly rewrite /var/sadm/install/contents).
Another motivation for bundling modules into generically named packages
was because normally package names are defined as "Uncommitted" by ARC,
and therefore should go through the EOL process when removed. You
avoid the need to EOL the package name interfaces when you reuse them.
It also makes things a bit more simple for handling package
dependencies. Using the window manager example, if there are many
packages that depend on the window manager, it is a bit easier to
manage those dependencies if the GNOME window manager package name
doesn't change. It can, for example, cause issues for 3rd party
ISV's if the packages they depend on go through name changes.
There are pros and cons to either approach. However, I think the
current consensus is that it is better for each package to map to a
single module, and for the package name to map to the module name.
Brian
