Brian, > Simon, did you miss the whole controversy about IPS not being designed > and created in the open? It seems everything about this project is > trying to circumvent the community processes and ARC.
I have to speak up here to point out that nothing about the project was done to circumvent either the community processes or the ARC. In the case of the latter, IPS (like the Indiana October ISO itself) is a prototype, not a product. Prototypes are not required to have been ARC approved or even ARC reviewed. Needless to say, the project team is well aware of the requirement of ARC review and will be coming as early as it can. With respect to the community processes, it has already been pointed out that there are different approaches to getting an idea started in the community. In some cases, pushing out some ideas, perhaps requirements but no actual code is a fine way to start the process. In other cases, people value seeing some sort of prototype that has served as some sort of validation to the community member wishing to propose something. Both methods are valid - I know you would liked to have seen things earlier but I believe in this particular case the approach that Stephen and others took is perfectly valid. > As you work for Sun, you can talk to Stephen Hahn yourself, and he > will be more likely to share the business reasons (IE: Non-technical) > that he chose not to use a preexisting source based > packaging/repository system, and decided to design a binary only > packaging system (IPS). (Which is completely different than the > "installer") I assume that you're referring to separating the build system from the packaging system. In my opinion, the primary reason for this was to leverage the large number of existing SVR4 packages that are already out there. If IPS or any other new packaging system required consolidations to retool their build systems in order to participate in the Indiana effort, I can assure you that there would have been no Indiana prototype in October or any other near-term date. Instead, I think the choice of separating the build and package systems not only meant we were able to make meaningful progress on the ISO and some of the the other goals for Indiana, but it also meant that the question of which build system can be done in a more thoughtful manner. dsc _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
