Martin Bochnig writes: > Also: I'm not talking about getting "famous" like Madonna. It would be > very nice already, if _certain_ folks would stop throwing fish at me. > Or better: If the community would protect me from experiences like > that.
I doubt that having others choose a different packaging system (whether that's RPM in Nexenta, SysV in SX, IPS in OpenSolaris) necessarily hinders someone else from choosing yet another packaging system. Except for a user fan base, I see no obvious competition between these systems. If it's good and people want it, it'll stand on its own merits. If it's not, it won't. That goes for IPS as well as it does for Conary or anything else. A more interesting question for this group, I think, is what requirements need to put onto the projects delivering into OpenSolaris consolidations so that those systems can work. Right now, I think we have a possibly unstable situation: the source isn't just 'source,' it also (naturally) includes packaging information. That information is in SysV format, which (through scripting) has flexibility that other systems (such as IPS) don't have, so accomodating those downstream consumers (distribution constructors) is an issue. Do we restrict projects to the least common denominator? Somehow abstract packaging away? Select one mechanism as "reference" and convert everything over? We probably need something like an OpenSolaris-wide policy here. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
