Brian Gupta wrote:
> The buyin is for all parties to agreed to work towards closer
> coordination of efforts.
>
> On 5/4/07, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> On Friday 04 May 2007 11:31, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>
>> > We need across the board buy-in. I will do everything I can to make
>> > this happen in shor
On 5/4/07, David.Comay at sun.com wrote:
> With respect to CCD and SFW, I've been thinking along the same lines.
> In general, I completely agree with this although longer term I don't
> see a need to introduce any more CCD packages. Instead what I would
> propose is that all such externally-deri
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:00:21PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 6) Stefan Teleman, Danek Duvall, Steve Stallion and Dennis Clarke will
> lead investigation into the next gen sfw-get packaging. Whether that's
> pkg-get compatible, apt-get compatible, or other, is for them to determine.
> Stefen is
I think you may be missing something. Just as there is an initiative
to open source Solaris, there is an initiative to make Solaris more
accessible to the Linux community.
Let us all understand that what we are talking about is Solaris 11 (or
OpenSolaris nevada). Solaris 10 is pretty much status q
Whether we are talking about Solaris or OpenSolaris, can we agree that
we are talking about a framework to incorporate Solaris community
efforts into OpenSolaris, with the hope that those changes will be
incorporated into Solaris.
I think so far we have done much to start moving there.
Draft #2:
On 04/05/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Whether we are talking about Solaris or OpenSolaris, can we agree that
> we are talking about a framework to incorporate Solaris community
> efforts into OpenSolaris, with the hope that those changes will be
> incorporated into Solaris.
You are missing one very k
Steve Stallion wrote:
> Ahh! My mistake. SFW would be fine IMHO - provided it is clearly defined.
>
SFW has a lot of baggage associated with the name. I'd suggest finding
a new
name without preconceptions associated with it.
Also, remember, this is now OpenSolaris, so even Freeware is ambiguous.
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> What am I being asked to vote on ? Another mission statement ?
>
> Let's plan to vote on the final draft of this (Feel free to give a
> tentative vote):
>
> Draft: OpenSolaris open source integration policy and development plan
> ---
On 04/05/07, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> (removed a few Cc:s because the mailing lists started to bounce
> the messages)
>
> On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:07 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > What ships in Solaris is 100% up to Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > > It will have to be built by Sun and supported b
On 04/05/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Peter Tribble wrote:
> > On 5/4/07, David.Comay at sun.com wrote:
> > > With respect to CCD and SFW, I've been thinking along the same lines.
> > > In general, I completely agree with this although longer term I don't
> > > see a need to introduce any
On Friday 04 May 2007 17:26, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:07 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > Personally, if feel that if it doesn't make it into Solaris, than
> > I am wasting my time. (I don't run xyz dist of OpenSolaris on my
> > mission critical servers. I run Solaris, and
(removed a few Cc:s because the mailing lists started to bounce
the messages)
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:07 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > What ships in Solaris is 100% up to Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > It will have to be built by Sun and supported by Sun for many years.
>
> Personally, if feel that
> Again, lets hold off on making these decisions until the draft
> document is ready. I have already accounted for these issues.
>
> What I am most concerned about at this point is the delivery of
> software rather than those that maintain it. Not that this isnt
> important, but it seems we are put
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>> I think the concept of CCD is simply bad. We should not be providing
>> a recompilation and packaging service. We should be providing assistance
>> to the ultimate code maintainers to provide Solaris "packages" just
>> like they
>> provide RPMs
> What ships in Solaris is 100% up to Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> It will have to be built by Sun and supported by Sun for many years.
Personally, if feel that if it doesn't make it into Solaris, than I am
wasting my time. (I don't run xyz dist of OpenSolaris on my mission
critical servers. I run Sol
Fair enough.
For any whom are interested, further posts made concerning software
delivery/architecture will be posted to ports-discuss until a more
suitable place is found.
I will be posting a document this weekend for those working on this
project to review and approve. It will detail the method
On 5/4/07, Peter Tribble wrote:
> On 5/4/07, David.Comay at sun.com wrote:
> > With respect to CCD and SFW, I've been thinking along the same lines.
> > In general, I completely agree with this although longer term I don't
> > see a need to introduce any more CCD packages. Instead what I would
>
Brian Gupta wrote:
>> > Perhaps. ;) But first we *all* need to come to a common vision.
>>
>>OKay ... let's write a mission statement and then go from there
>> perhaps.
>
> No point in writing a mission statement if everyone isn't on board.
A certain book by Joseph Heller comes to mind
-
> > Can we agreed that the current consumer of the work done through
> > OpenSolaris.org is Sun Microsystems? (Through Solaris, and Sun's
> > downstream customers)
>
> I could not possibly disagree with this more. However, as thoroughly
> wrong as this is conceptually, it's very close to being co
Peter,
>> With respect to CCD and SFW, I've been thinking along the same lines.
>> In general, I completely agree with this although longer term I don't
>> see a need to introduce any more CCD packages. Instead what I would
>> propose is that all such externally-derived open source be integrated
Hi,
A few notes below.
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 15:09 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 4) Merge SFW, CCD, and GNU communities/projects into a single one called SFW.
>Merge leadership, mailing lists and members. This needs to be fast tracked
>(Ian)
I think you missed some of the biggest consolid
> "Brian" == Brian Gupta writes:
Brian> I'd rather not make people subscribe to a list that they aren't
Brian> on to be involved in the conversation. So it's going to all
Brian> relevant lists.
Brian> Am I missing something?
Yes. ;-)
If the mail goes to lists A, B, and C, and you're only o
WARNING : Kieth is being somewhat heavy handed here and I agree with him.
On 5/4/07, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:42:49PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> > Can we agreed that the current consumer of the work done through
> > OpenSolaris.org is Sun Microsystems? (Through S
Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 19:58 -0700, Mike Kupfer wrote:
>
>> jek3> I think the concept of CCD is simply bad. We should not be
>> jek3> providing a recompilation and packaging service. We should be
>> jek3> providing assistance to the ultimate code maintainers to provi
Again, lets hold off on making these decisions until the draft
document is ready. I have already accounted for these issues.
What I am most concerned about at this point is the delivery of
software rather than those that maintain it. Not that this isnt
important, but it seems we are putting the ca
> I am OK with all of this, with partial reservations on [5]. My
> reservations are not based on the substance of [5], but on the
> logistics of [5]. I am operating under the assumption that
> defining "core" Solaris is probably a task to be shared with Sun
> Microsystems, Inc., whereas defining "c
On Friday 04 May 2007 15:42, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > I am OK with all of this, with partial reservations on [5]. My
> > reservations are not based on the substance of [5], but on the
> > logistics of [5]. I am operating under the assumption that
> > defining "core" Solaris is probably a task to be s
All,
I will be finishing up the draft req's I have researched for the ports
project this weekend. There are some very fundamental changes I have
included which changes how software distribution works on Solaris
today. Software management is much, much more than simple fetching,
and this document a
Brian Gupta wrote:
> I didn't read the whole discussion, put I did read the post you
> pointed out. Whether the packages are installed in /opt/csw, /opt/sfw,
> /usr/sfw, or /usr/gnu, they are still being kept at arms length. I
> personally don't think picking yet another place to install open
>
> Would it be possible to create an new OpenSolaris project/community to
> own this effort rather than using an existing one (ie: ports,
> blastwave, pkgbuild, etc.) ?
>
> I can certainly say that I would have no issue retiring the ports
> project if it would benefit the community as a whole.
Yes,
On Friday 04 May 2007 15:09, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Let's plan to vote on the final draft of this (Feel free to give a
> tentative vote):
>
> Draft: OpenSolaris open source integration policy and development
> plan
> ---
>--
> What am I being asked to vote on ? Another mission statement ?
Let's plan to vote on the final draft of this (Feel free to give a
tentative vote):
Draft: OpenSolaris open source integration policy and development plan
-
Mike Kupfer wrote:
> jek3> I think the concept of CCD is simply bad. We should not be
> jek3> providing a recompilation and packaging service. We should be
> jek3> providing assistance to the ultimate code maintainers to provide
> jek3> Solaris "packages" just like they provide RPMs (or whatever)
On Friday 04 May 2007 14:40, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > > > Perhaps. ;) But first we *all* need to come to a common
> > > > vision.
> > >
> > >OKay ... let's write a mission statement and then go from
> > > there perhaps.
> >
> > No point in writing a mission st
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > Let's stick with hardware that is as real as real gets to avoid the
> > possibility of any package being released that has not ever been
> > actually tested on the real thing.
>
> OK
That implies infrastructure to be in place and up and running with
the neces
I'd rather not make people subscribe to a list that they aren't on to
be involved in the conversation. So it's going to all relevant lists.
Am I missing something?
Ahh! My mistake. SFW would be fine IMHO - provided it is clearly defined.
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > Would it be possible to create an new OpenSolaris project/community to
> > own this effort rather than using an existing one (ie: ports,
> > blastwave, pkgbuild, etc.) ?
> >
> > I can certa
On 5/4/07, Steve Stallion wrote:
> Would it be possible to consolidate these conversations on a single list?
> ports-discuss is as good a place as any...
>
Seems like a good idea.
Steve, I recall talking with you some time ago about getting some
infrastructure in place that would aid the por
I may ruffle some feathers by saying this - but here goes...
What I would really like to see is all of this projects be
consolidated into a single *new* project/community to tackle this
problem. It allows us to display a concentrated effort to the
community, and has the additional benefit of not a
scribe to a list that they aren't on to
> be involved in the conversation. So it's going to all relevant lists.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-d
> that is an overdue chat. One that needs to happen in the context of a
> "go forward" long term project.
>
> Dennis
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-discuss/attachments/20070504/95748a78/attachment.html>
ill need top
> level
> > buy in. Whether or not package x is supported or unsupported, it should
> be
> > installed in the same place. e.g - /usr/bin/x
> >
> > Ideally once this is all in place, one could run "spm-get upgrade-all"
> and
> > after some time, the system would be running the latest version of
> > OpenSolaris.
> >
> > -Brian
> >
> ___
> ports-discuss mailing list
> ports-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ports-discuss
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-discuss/attachments/20070504/c6a0b4c3/attachment.html>
ould respond, either commit, or say that
> > > they will not commit. No abstains. Yeah or Nay.
> >
> > YAY
>
> +1 (Can I do this to my own proposal? I guess it's like putting a buck
> in your tip jar to get the money flowing.)
>
> > > If we can quickly reach agreement, I will draft a project proposal for
> > > review. We are desperately short of time. Informed decisions need to
> > > be made quickly. (Oxymoron I know.) ;)
> >
> > YAY to that also.
>
> +1
> ___
> ports-discuss mailing list
> ports-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ports-discuss
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-discuss/attachments/20070504/31d6c93b/attachment.html>
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:42:49PM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Can we agreed that the current consumer of the work done through
> OpenSolaris.org is Sun Microsystems? (Through Solaris, and Sun's
> downstream customers)
I could not possibly disagree with this more. However, as thoroughly
wrong a
On Friday 04 May 2007 12:46, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > What are we voting Yeah or Nay on ?
>
> That you personally and whatever group you may represent are
> committed to bringing all the groups that are involved with Open
> Source packaging and (Open)Solaris integration. That you are
> committed to
> This "buy-in" has existed, in theory, since June 14, 2005. We've gone
> through several incarnations thereof.
>
> The problem has always been that this "buy-in" has never evolved, thus
> far, beyond generic mission statements of adherence. Maybe this time
> it will be different.
I aim to fix tha
> Let's stick with hardware that is as real as real gets to avoid the
> possibility of any package being released that has not ever been
> actually tested on the real thing.
OK
> There must be standards compliance and of course I agree with the
> enforcement of these standards. That is a non-iss
On Friday 04 May 2007 12:20, Brian Gupta wrote:
> The buyin is for all parties to agreed to work towards closer
> coordination of efforts.
This "buy-in" has existed, in theory, since June 14, 2005. We've gone
through several incarnations thereof.
The problem has always been that this "buy-in" ha
On 5/4/07, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 11:31, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> > We need across the board buy-in. I will do everything I can to make
> > this happen in short order.
>
> As long as this conversation starts off with aprioric exclusions of
> the "we will do but we will not do
The buyin is for all parties to agreed to work towards closer
coordination of efforts.
On 5/4/07, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 11:31, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> > We need across the board buy-in. I will do everything I can to make
> > this happen in short order.
>
> As long as this c
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> See answers below.
>
> > > That really impressed me. Perchance, can this farm be used for
> > > building OpenSolaris/SFW packages? (I think the rules say that you
> > > have to be within two revs of bleeding edge.)
> >
> >The answer is a resounding "
On Friday 04 May 2007 11:31, Brian Gupta wrote:
> We need across the board buy-in. I will do everything I can to make
> this happen in short order.
As long as this conversation starts off with aprioric exclusions of
the "we will do but we will not do " kind, i do not see how
this across the bo
Dennis,
See answers below.
> > That really impressed me. Perchance, can this farm be used for
> > building OpenSolaris/SFW packages? (I think the rules say that you
> > have to be within two revs of bleeding edge.)
>
>The answer is a resounding "YES".
>
>In fact, previous to my server roo
Brian,
There's another reason to think of making Blastwave an "official" tool.
There's a lot of OSS stuff officially integrated into Solaris and not in
SFW ... Gnome, PostgreSQL, libxml, etc, etc. However, due to our Q/A and
integration process, often these are *not* the very latest versions.
Hi Brian,
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 00:19 -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> I think the overall issue needs to be broken down into a number of
> parallel initiatives/projects:
>
> 1) There is no common packaging system that meets the needs of the
> community in use today. We need to come up with one that s
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 19:58 -0700, Mike Kupfer wrote:
>
> jek3> I think the concept of CCD is simply bad. We should not be
> jek3> providing a recompilation and packaging service. We should be
> jek3> providing assistance to the ultimate code maintainers to provide
> jek3> Solaris "packages" just
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> I think the concept of CCD is simply bad. We should not be providing
> a recompilation and packaging service. We should be providing assistance
> to the ultimate code maintainers to provide Solaris "packages" just like
> they
> provide RPMs (or whatever) for Linux.
Weari
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:19:11AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> 1) There is no common packaging system that meets the needs of the community
> in use today. We need to come up with one that supports dependencies,
> updates, and network repositories. (Mirrors are welcome). All parts of
> Solaris wil
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> I'm glad you joined the conversation.
Thank you for starting it up. I had been very busy for the past
twenty hours or so and that is why I missed the beginning of this.
Sorry about that.
> See responses below
>
> > Blastwave has provided free a
Dennis,
I'm glad you joined the conversation.
See responses below
> Blastwave has provided free access to the build servers and tools
> for years. Since day one and any developer that wants to work on
> porting software to Solaris can just join up and login and have access
> to the whole sta
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Oh yeah, and then there is this:
> http://cooltools.sunsource.net/coolstack/ (Available for Sparc and
> x86.
Two things :
Blastwave has provided free access to the build servers and tools
for years. Since day one and any developer that wants to work on
porti
Oh yeah, and then there is this:
http://cooltools.sunsource.net/coolstack/ (Available for Sparc and
x86.
On 5/4/07, Brian Gupta wrote:
>
> > Discussions around this general topic interest me a great deal, and this
> > iteration of it adds _some_ new context I think. However the best way for
> > m
> basis, as well as coordinating with authors and GNU package maintainers,
> > that are willing to take on Sun Package maintenance.
> >
> > 6) This is really part of one, but it controversial and will need top
> level
> > buy in. Whether or not package x is supported or unsupported, it should
> be
> > installed in the same place. e.g - /usr/bin/x
> >
> > Ideally once this is all in place, one could run "spm-get upgrade-all"
> and
> > after some time, the system would be running the latest version of
> > OpenSolaris.
> >
> > -Brian
> >
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-discuss/attachments/20070504/3fb296c4/attachment.html>
I agree with Mike on his comments and ...
A good portion of the "upstream maintainers" I have dealt with over the
years either have no Solaris boxes or have either a SPARC or x86
box, but rarely both, and often NOT running anything like the most
recent version of Solaris/Opensolaris. If you rea
e latest version of
OpenSolaris.
-Brian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/gnu-sol-discuss/attachments/20070504/03b2d3ef/attachment.html>
Brian,
Discussions around this general topic interest me a great deal, and this
iteration of it adds _some_ new context I think. However the best way for
me to give my perspective here is to point to the previous iteration of
this topic that Mike Kupfer just pointed to. That is, my views remain
pr
66 matches
Mail list logo
