On 5/5/07, Joseph Kowalski <jek3 at sun.com> wrote: > Brian Gupta wrote: > > Actually it depends on home you define base OS. > EXACTLY! (well, assuming home -> how) > > We seem to be each moving forward with a different concept. > > In bullet 5, three levels were asserted (my paraphrasing): > > 1) core OS > 2) other Sun supported > 3) other > > (Interesting that we are discussing "Sun supported" in an OpenSolaris > forum. Seems like a choice entirely up to Sun. Let's just ignore this and > move on.) > > Under an OpenSolaris framework, it is a syntax error to assume Sun > Solaris is the only distro or only significant distro, I recall seeing mail > asserting that this was the case today. That doesn't mean we should > design systems around that temporal situation. The playing field must > be level for OpenSolaris to succeed. It doesn't matter if anybody actually > takes to the field. > > In a world of many distros, each distro gets to decide what objects > they ship (and perhaps support). If they don't, what's the point of > multiple distros? > > So, I have an entirely different view of categories. > > 1) distro delivered > 2) other > > With the line between the two categories being different for each > distro. (Ubuntu has kinda clouded the line of "delivered", but > their various "universes" provide the same conceptual separation.) > > I would like to see a world (spoken in the tone of the GEICO > commercial) where maintainers provided packages in the form > suitable for 2), and its up to the distro (perhaps aided by an > OpenSolaris project) to convert them to the form appropriate > for 1). There seems to be some skeptisism that the maintainers > are willing to do this, and the form 2) packages could be provided > by an OpenSolaris project. That is a process detail. 8^) > > OpenSolaris can't provide the packages in form 1) as they are > potentially different for each distro. A couple of examples from > the wonderful world of Linux distros: > > Red Hat EL 5 Ubuntu/Debian > /bin/rpm /usr/bin/rpm kinda makes > sense if you think about it. > /bin/sort /usr/bin/sort got me as to > why, seems like a failure in the making. > > The only point is that Linux distros do relocate objects. (Maybe > this isn't a good thing -> separate discussion. But I could see a > Solaris based distribution which conformed to the FSH part of > the LSB - Sun's not going to do this for compatibility reasons.) > > Of course, this breaks down at some level. The kernel, libc, grub > and many other things just need to be certain places. > > So, ignoring what Sun should do (which seems to be deeply > embedded in Brian's goals), what should OpenSolaris strive > for? > > My "back of the cocktail napkin" proposal is that this OpenSolaris > team divide the packages/objects into two categories: > > 1) If delivered, must be delivered by the distro (core). > 2) Everything else. > > 2) is much, much larger than 1)
Maybe I'm missing what you intend to be a "distro": Either is OpenSolaris a full distro or a "core distro" only? IMHO there is a 1.5 set of packages that are "community delivered", think to them something like the Ubuntu universe. They are packages done by the "comunity" following the same "building rules" of 1) but that have not the same support of 2). Again I think Ubuntu distinction is good. The 1.5 set should be easily downloaded/installed and, if installed, it will override the set 1) at user risk. > > OpenSolaris should strive to provide a repository of packages > for everything in category 2) which does not overwrite the > distro provided objects. (This may be blastwave.) These packages > should be kept as current (to the maintainer's version) as > possible/practical. It is a choice of each distro as to when to > refresh their delivered version from these references - another > area where distros may desire to differentiate themselves. > > I know this doesn't come close to what I interpret Brian's > goals to be, but his desires seem to be for Sun to make certain > business decisions. That's fine, and it would be embodied in > as to which of the grand blob of packages, Sun (the distro) > decides to deliver and support. Its even appropriate for this > OpenSolaris community to lobby Sun for certain business > choices (and some of the right people are on the line), but > OpenSolaris should not design projects assuming a certain > decision. > > I know there are several levels of more detailed discussion > that need to happen. I understand that, but a clear and common > understanding of the software categories must be the first > goal. > > - jek3 > > _______________________________________________ > gnu-sol-discuss mailing list > gnu-sol-discuss at opensolaris.org > -- FList
