On 30/08/2007, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/29/07, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brandorr wrote: > > ... > > > One more thing to add. Stephen says lets deal with source packaging > > > and building standards later, because we would run into too much flak > > > converting everyone to the same build standard. (This seems to include > > > mostly non-OpenSolaris projects). > > > > > > I am thinking it is better to have a standard now, and let people > > > convert their source packaging over to the standard over time. > > > (Decouple "selecting a source package build standard", from "deploying > > > that standard across the board"). > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > So long as you're not implying that "deploying binaries to end users" be > > held hostage to "selecting a source package build standard", feel free > > to tilt at that windmill ;-) > > > > I've had my say. I am not writing the code, so ultimately it is not up > to me. I just don't want to end up in a situation where we haven't > given people a standard option for repository based source > distribution and building, and a dozen different methods pop up, > depending on what project it is.
I think the point made in the original blog post is that Sun already had dozens of methods for building source internally, so trying to force one way of doing things on everyone would lead to mass chaos at the moment. Instead, the build system must be attacked separately, and over time, projects must be convinced to move to it. I think the JDS CBE is the best bet, in the meantime, for any community projects. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
