Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com wrote:
First, you need to stop saying must and attempting to
dictate design and implementation decisions.
Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
things but signal that there is an interest for a collaboration.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:42:53 +0100
From: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
snip
Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
things but signal that there is an interest for a collaboration.
illumos is collaborative. In the past year there has been around 50
Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:42:53 +0100
From: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
snip
Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
things but signal that there is an interest for a collaboration.
illumos is
On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:17, Alasdair Lumsden alasd...@lumsden.eu wrote:
illumos is not a distribution. It carries packaging metadata in IPS format as
a convenience for downstream distributions, but downstream distributions are
not obliged to use IPS. Perhaps in the future illumos will stop
Andy Stormont andyjstorm...@gmail.com wrote:
The IPS metadeta isn?t really that useful to non-IPS distributions but I?m
not sure removing it is a good idea. Instead I?d rather see the SVR4 data
reintegrated if it?s going to see some use and somebody cares enough to
maintain it.
This is
On 19 Feb 2014, at 12:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alasdair Lumsden alasdai...@gmail.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:42:53 +0100
From: joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
snip
Well it would be great if some people at Illumos would not try to dictate
things but signal that there is
On 19 Feb 2014, at 13:30, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
wrote:
Andy Stormont andyjstorm...@gmail.com wrote:
The IPS metadeta isn?t really that useful to non-IPS distributions but I?m
not sure removing it is a good idea. Instead I?d rather see the SVR4 data
On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:27, Igor Kozhukhov wrote:
Hi All,
it is thread about OI , but let me provide additional info.
We are talking about illumos, but I think, we have to understand, that
illumos based on sponsors who are using it for business and depend on it.
Take a look list of
Bayard Bell buffer.g.overf...@gmail.com wrote:
From my experiences Illumos is non-collaborative and non-trustworthy.
This however is something that could be easily changed. Illumos would just
need to give a sign that there is a will for collaboration.
This is tiresome and
Andy Stormont andyjstorm...@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I did in late 2010 and early 2011.
Svr4 package meta data is present and maintained on SchilliX-ON.
Feel free to take it.
I?d love to see an SVR4 distro that was actually supported by upstream
illumos but I won?t be the one
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Andy Stormont andyjstorm...@gmail.comwrote:
I'd love to see an SVR4 distro that was actually supported by upstream
illumos but I won't be the one to make it happen.
Define supported. Tribblix is a pure SVR4 distro from a vanilla
illumos-gate,
really just a
On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bayard Bell buffer.g.overf...@gmail.com wrote:
From my experiences Illumos is non-collaborative and non-trustworthy.
This however is something that could be easily changed. Illumos would just
need to give a sign that there is a will for
Bayard Bell buffer.g.overf...@gmail.com wrote:
illumos never made any promises to you,
I am sorry to see that you are uninformed.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)
The reason we need a minimum of criteria for collaboration is precisely
because the different distributions have different focus, approach, and use
case scenarios in mind, but a set of core features that will make it to a
unified kernel will be for everyone's benefit. Additional layers will be
14 matches
Mail list logo
