Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > Doug Scott wrote, On 03/07/07 04:54: > > Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > >> Peter Tribble wrote, On 02/07/07 20:44: > >> > >> > One thing that hasn't been addressed is whether Indiana can > >> > use the SUNW package prefix in the first place? > >> > >> I suppose that it would be fine as long as they are compatible [1]. > >> In fact, I would encourage it for the sake of compatibility. > >> > >> 1.- So the new question would be, how to ensure they are > compatible. > >> > > I think Peter was asking whether Sun would (or can) allow > OpenSolaris to > > use SUNW as this always has been used to tag a package as part of a Sun > > product. Another question is will there be a 1-1 mapping between > current > > Solaris packages and Indiana packages? i.e. Indiana could break some of > > the larger packages into smaller packages to give the end user more > > choice of what is installed on their system. > > My understanding if that, if there isn't a *very important reason* > for breaking compatibility, we should definitely going for remaining > compatible. >
Where is the compatibility problem exactly. We do have certain build processes such as pkgbuild that map out the dependencies. These are easily modified to accept whatever it is changed to. I know some installers also may look for particular packages. Here you have the same problem with version change of OS e.g. Solaris 9 -> Solaris 10. If you want your level of compatibility then version numbers should never change. Do you think it does not happen now? Look for the package SUNWpcre on your system. It was there a few builds ago, but now it is not. Are you going to allow other distributions to ship SUNW packages? If not then how are they going to be compatible with Indiana. If so then you may have solved Sun's export restrictions. Doug _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
