* Brian Cameron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Glenn: > > I think your arguments are sound. It does seem that there should be > an interface for finding out if the user has a preference for IPS to > be used as the packaging system (beyond IPS just being installed on > the system).
In theory, if a user wants to use IPS to manager their system they would have to configure IPS to use any repository other than the default. In this particular case, fluendo's. So, if fluendo creates an IPS repository and populates it the end-user will have to configure IPS on their system to look for that repository specifically. So, fluendo really doesn't have to do anything other than create an IPS repo in order to satisfy the installation needs of systems using IPS. > It also seems odd that there isn't a standard interface that can be > reliably used to differentiate between a Solaris and OpenSolaris > installation. Or some other OpenSolaris derivative, for that matter. That's a much bigger problem. And sort of out-of-scope to my mind. > Without these sorts of interfaces, programs like codeina can't reliably > know when to provide IPS packages for end-users via a client > application. See, I don't think it should be about knowing when to provide packages in a particular format. It should be about providing packages that are going to work on a given system given that system's features. As I said, Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris are very different in terms of feature set. Heck, the media players in Gnome shipped in Solaris 10 are *years* old at this point (from Gnome 2.0). If the plugins fluendo are going to provide require features in those applications of recent vintage then they aren't going to work on Solaris 10. That's just an example. In the case of IPS vs SVR4, the problem is simple. There is currently no on-disk format for IPS packages. Everything comes from a network repository. So until an on-disk format is created (it's planned) a user will have to manually configure their system to point to a fluendo IPS repo to pull IPS formatted packages from. Were I fluendo, I'd figure out what my target markets were and then develop for that. Solaris 10 is one platform. OpenSolaris/Indiana is another. They are distinct platforms and will have differing features. If they can make their software work on both with one set of packages regardless of the format of those packages that's great (though I doubt it). Tell them to create SVR4 packages in that case and they're safe until we phase out SVR4 support entirely (if we even do that which I've not heard any plans of doing but it could happen I suppose). If they have to have seperate packages anyway because of the differences, then create SVR4 for Solaris 10 and IPS repo for OpenSolaris. Cheers, Glenn _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
