Alberto Ruiz wrote, On 27/06/07 00:44: > > I think SUNWCreq may actually be more than we want. Does anybody know > > how big it and all of its dependencies is? > > To reinforce the "may be more than we want point", here's the graph > Glynn posted: > http://www.gnome.org/~gman/metacluster-cluster-mapping.png > > > If we are seriously thinking about making solaris more appealing to > linux (and any) users, we should seriosly rethink the way we name > packages. For me, any of those package names means absolutely nothing (I > know SUNW because I like stock market issues, but I think this SUNW > thing is also redundant and meaningless for most people).
Partially disagree with that.. It's true that the SUNW isn't really meaningful, and that usually package names are quite cryptic. However, it is very important to remain compatible with all the Solaris software out there. And of course, ISVs wouldn't be happy if we change all the package names over night. Besides, with a decent installation utility, you wouldn't even need to know the name of the package. It can use the standard names internally, but that doesn't mean that you'd have to deal with them. I don't think that, in this case, such a big compatibility break would be justified when a simple interface could easy your pain :-) -- Greetings, alo. _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
