Glynn Foster wrote:
[ ... ]
Going forward, we need to change this - everyone needs to have a
conscience of not taking the easy way out. We need to work as a team, as
a community and prove it to ourselves that we can get out of this mess.
I'm keen - anyone else? :)
Count me in, that's for sure. (More below.)
Elsewhere Stefan Teleman wrote:
>On 12/22/05, Stefan Teleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>A bit of news: i have been working with Steve Christensen , and i am
>>very happy to let everyone know that KDE will be available on the
>>Companion CD.
>>
>>
>
>we would very much need, and welcome community input on the Companion
>CD. the thread about GNOME and KDE is already having this discussion,
>so maybe it would be better to continue the discussion there, rather
>than split it into two separate threads.
My 2 cents:
I think the best thing that could happen in this regard is to have
4-way[1] alignment at the package dependency level between a) the
Solaris SFW consolidation team (which, governs the Companion CD), b) The
JDS consolidation team, c) the SchilliX/Blastwave/CSW team, and d) the
Belenix team.
All four obviously have huge momentum; thus, to the extent there is at
least low-level dependency architecture alignment between them, we'll be
able to avoid balkanization.
So Stefan, in reply to your request for input on the Companion CD:
With the above in mind, what kind of input are you looking for from
Belenix developers and Blatstwave maintainers? (BTW, as of this week I
am the maintainer of a couple Blastwave/CSW packages -- CSWpine and
CSWimap).
Eric
[1]: I've not included Nexenta only because what I'm talking about is
alignment around Solaris SVR4 package architecture, which Nexenta
doesn't use.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
