2007/7/2, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And then, when you find problems, you will need to handle packages > individually as files, do you think that it is a good idea to have different > names in the interface than in the filename? SUNWckr??? What problems? I don't see it as anymore of a problem than the whole meta-packages or clusters that GNU/Linux distributions often use and that Solaris uses as well.
Problems on upgrades, or third party repositories, package conflicts. At some point you have to deal directly with packages. That's where I will have to disagree. Solaris has proven that
compatibility issues do not prevent innovation. So far I haven't seen good reasoning as to why package naming matters so much that it would prevent innovation necessary to attract users to a platform.
Innovation and attracting users are two different things. The way you expose those innovations, is even more important than the innovation itself. Lots of people find the OpenSolaris innovations unfordable in terms of learning curve. Making this learning curve as soft as possible is a must. And keeping weird names all around is not helping to make that curve softer. If package naming is really that much of an issue, then I could
probably sit here all day and show you the rather convoluted and unhelpful names of packages I find on many GNU/Linux distributions most of the day.
Forget about GNU/Linux, I don't care if the GNU/Linux distributions does well or bad packaging naming. I do care about the one we are going to use. Don't turn this into a useless fight between GNU/Linux way and Solaris way. This is about good design principles. I do not believe that a tool cannot be provided to make it easy to
find and manage software that does not rely solely on arbitrarily chosen, and not always helpful, package names.
Okay, then write it, and show me that I'm wrong. Meanwhile, even the better tools for package managing out there, needs dealing with package directly at some point. On the other hand, we are forgetting, that this is a community effort, and we are going to expect community members to maintain packages. Keeping good principles and conventions within package naming, will make life way easier to package maintainers.
Indiana should be designed for the long term, as good as possible. Of > course, compatibility with Solaris should be kept whenever possible, but it > shouldn't stop meaningful problems. In the grand scheme of things, I sincerely doubt package names are going to be what stops adoption of any OpenSolaris based distribution. I think there are many other things that are far more meaningful in the long run.
At this point, I think its pointless trying to discuss, again, the importance of a sane packaging system and the use of sane conventions in it. I wont convince you on how important it is, but that doesn't change the fact that it is extremely important for a lot of people. -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz
_______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
