Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nexenta is very different in many subtle ways already.
As I said before though, I don't believe Nexenta to be a *harmful*
fork; just a fork :)
If you start to discuss harmful forks, you open a new can of worms.
Forks always affect the original project
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries
and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again,
packaging supposed to be changed, or otherwise what is the value behind
any of distribution derivatives?
No, I
On Feb 6, 2008 6:02 AM, Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries
and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again,
packaging supposed to be changed, or otherwise
On Feb 6, 2008 4:44 AM, Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to install GNOME libs in order to run a X-less base OpenSolaris
installation. Do you believe this is correct?
No, but I suspect it's a result of packaging, not software.
If
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 4:44 AM, Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need to install GNOME libs in order to run a X-less base OpenSolaris
installation. Do you believe this is correct?
No, but I suspect it's a
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 6:02 AM, Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries
and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again,
packaging supposed
On Feb 6, 2008 10:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Yes, I am trying to say that packaging is the issue here, not software.
No. Dependencies are the issue. Many dependencies are created when the
Dependencies are a result of packaging in most cases, so I
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 10:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Yes, I am trying to say that packaging is the issue here, not software.
No. Dependencies are the issue. Many dependencies are created when the
Dependencies are a
On Feb 6, 2008 11:41 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 10:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Yes, I am trying to say that packaging is the issue here, not software.
No. Dependencies are the issue. Many
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 11:41 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 10:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Yes, I am trying to say that packaging is the issue here, not software.
Kyle McDonald wrote:
a) Xscreensaver. The dependency on GTK might be solved similiar to
DBUS and HAL with packaging. It's my suggestion though that if the
dependencies for XscreenSaver were considered harder, then a better
solution might have been found for integrating the Accessibility
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:54 -0800
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
a) Xscreensaver. The dependency on GTK might be solved similiar to
DBUS and HAL with packaging. It's my suggestion though that if the
dependencies for XscreenSaver were considered harder,
Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:54 -0800
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
The missing link here is deciding it's worthwhile to do that work.
When xscreensaver was added to Solaris during one of the Solaris 9
update releases it was explicitly to
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
a) Xscreensaver. The dependency on GTK might be solved similiar to
DBUS and HAL with packaging. It's my suggestion though that if the
dependencies for XscreenSaver were considered harder, then a better
solution might have been found for
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:19:46 -0800
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:54 -0800
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
The missing link here is deciding it's worthwhile to do that work.
When xscreensaver was
On Feb 5, 2008 8:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I understand that in the linux world 'DBUS' and 'HAL' have
come from the same (or closely connected) community that GNOME comes
from. So I don't see a problem with the GNOME team at sun being
responsible for
Shawn Walker wrote:
[...]
But when the program that manages automatically mounting removable media
was integrated and required these API's, libraries, and daemons, I think
it should have been obvious to move them to some other more 'system
level' package and not allowed to stay in large GNOME
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Another example, is Xscreensaver. I always used to be able install that
with only X11 installed. Now not only does GNOME have to be installed
too, So does large portions of Evolution!! What on earth does Evolution
have to do with a ScreenSaver?
Again, that's a
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 8:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I understand that in the linux world 'DBUS' and 'HAL' have
come from the same (or closely connected) community that GNOME comes
from. So I don't see a problem with the GNOME
On Feb 5, 2008 11:42 AM, Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 8:31 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, I understand that in the linux world 'DBUS' and 'HAL' have
come from the same (or closely connected)
On Feb 5, 2008 12:49 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:44 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Thus, I stand by the claim that Nexenta, at the very least, is a fork.
You deeply mistaken here. As far as OpenSolaris is concerned - Nexenta
is NOT a fork. We share the
On Feb 5, 2008 1:14 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:08 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 12:49 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:44 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Thus, I stand by the claim that Nexenta, at the
On Feb 5, 2008 1:27 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:26 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
...and I never said that wasn't a good thing. I'm just pointing out
that Nexenta is different.
in a good, practical and positive way... :-)
That I will whole-heartedly
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:08 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 12:49 PM, Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 12:44 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
Thus, I stand by the claim that Nexenta, at the very least, is a fork.
You deeply mistaken here. As far as
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:26 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
...and I never said that wasn't a good thing. I'm just pointing out
that Nexenta is different.
in a good, practical and positive way... :-)
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Moinak Ghosh wrote:
BTW on a side note I just checked the dependencies here. SUNWhal and
SUNWrmvolmgr depend on SUNWgnome-base-libs.
SUNWgnome-base-libs != GNOME.
Then why does it say 'gnome' in the name? How would someone new to
Solaris know that it wasn't part of gnome? Why wouldn't
26 matches
Mail list logo
