Alan DuBoff wrote: > On Wednesday 21 March 2007 06:18 am, Eric Boutilier wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Alan DuBoff wrote: >>> On Monday 19 March 2007 05:13 pm, David Lloyd wrote: >>>> Joe, >>>> >>>>>> Indeed, apt-get for Solaris would be quite useful :P >>>>> Isn't that Nexenta? Had to say it. >>>> I don't want the Ubuntu Userland on an OpenSolaris code base. I'd prefer >>>> a distribution as close to Sun's release of Sun Solaris (tm) that I can >>>> get but without Sun Solaris', errrm, wonderful? package management. >>> Why do you care about the packaging system, if it works? IOW, do you >>> really care about what type of package is used if packaging in Solaris >>> worked as it should, with dependencies resolving properly? >>> >>> I don't think you really care about .deb packages either, what I *think* >>> you're saying is "give me a packaging system that works like apt does!", >> But that just brings us back to Joe's original point: >> >> Isn't that Nexenta? > > Not really, although Nexenta does qualify with that statement. > > SysV packages would be just as good, if they resolved dependencies properly, > IMO. I see nothing wrong with SysV packages which we use today, if they could > be modified to handle the small addition we might need, for versioning and > dependencies, for instance. > > This is all a part of the packaging project, AFAIK. > > I'll move this over to install-discuss, per Dave Miner's suggestion. >
Thanks, Alan. Yeah, we expect to enhance packaging to provide automatic dependency resolution, but the bigger problem is dependency discovery and maintenance. Our purchase of Aduva brought in some technology there, which we need to figure out how to apply. Dave
