On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Bochnig wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Martin Bochnig wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Martin Bochnig wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Calum Benson >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On 19 Oct 2008, at 13:11, Duncan Paterson wrote: >> >> >> >>> What are the chances that this will one day rival apt for >> selection, >> >>> frequency of updates and speed. >> >> >> >> It will happen a lot quicker once we have repositories in >> place to >> >> which everyone can contribute packages. I get the feeling >> that'll be >> >> a pretty high priority once 2008.11 is out the door, and >> with a bit >> >> of >> >> luck it'll be in full swing in time for the 2009.04 release. >> >> > Not necessary, because by then users can do the same thing >> in a >> > better way >> > (more sophisticated, but complexity encapsulated from >> users) via the >> > then >> > available conary-based version of Indiana. >> >> Which is fine, but just because you consider it unnecessary >> doesn't >> mean it isn't going to happen :) >> >> Cheeri, >> Calum. >> >> -- >> CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> GNOME Desktop Team >> >> http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 977 >> >> >> >> >> Oh, ditto. >> >> But think twice: If Sun likes to pay tons of money for >> re-inventing the wheel only to come into a position, where they >> can say "we made this, it is our little kindergarden invention", >> rather than having licensed rPath's conary in the first place >> (which is in busy development since 2004), then go ahead and >> waste more TIME, more MANPOWER, more MONEY and more other >> RESOURCES. >> I doubt your primary interest is to HELP CUSTOMERS increase >> their PRODUCTIVITY. >> >> >> Sigh. Martin, this is becoming tedious. I think all of us >> involved with packaging acknowledge that Conary has a fine product, >> but it didn't meet the requirements that we had identified for Sun's >> businesses. We wish you well in packaging up your distro. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Dave, ok ok. >> But _which_ requirements didn't it meet? >> Did anybody ever tell me (precisely) ? >> I'm still waiting for a detailed answer other than "for (internal reasons) >> that we had identified for Sun's businesses". >> Thoughts? >> >> > I believe that Stephen answered this at one point in as much detail as he > cared to get into, but perhaps he'll decide to follow up. > > Dave > Not really, Dr. Hahn rather worked around them, than actually answering them. But Dave, I don't like to fight against you. Your distro is kicking and running now, it is clear that you won't go back anymore. All that we from our side (can and) will do, is to build and maintain a 3rd-party (external) version of Indiana (11/08, 04/09 and ongoing) which uses conary as primary pkg-management system, instead of IPS. This is all we can "influence". And all we are going to attemt to influence. I respect your IPS work. But it would not have been necessary to re-invent wheels. And it would have been better if you would have asked the external community and user base, which you didn't do, did you? %martin
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
