> Common across what? Really, what is the scope? Even after reading the > whole thread a couple of times I'm unsure whether you're trying to provide > something for Solaris/SXCE specifically, a new distribution that doesn't > exist yet, or trying to be all things to all distributions.
Specifically to an "OpenSolaris Reference Distribution", which does not exist yet. > > 2. Common repository and OpenSolaris community. > > Who would the repository serve? I would expect a repository to serve > the users of one particular distribution, so which one? Given that > there isn't an OpenSolaris distribution as such at the present time, > which distribution do you pick? Specifically to an "OpenSolaris Reference Distribution", which does not exist yet. It would also provide support for those distros that follow the OpenSolaris standards. One argument I have heard is that OpenSolaris should not set these standards, because it doesn't match all distros needs. I don't think that should hold us back from setting a standard distribution and packaging method. Anyone can deviate from the "standard" as they wish, just as there are various branches of the Linux kernel that do not mirror the standard/mainline branch. > > 4. Packages need to have a formal policy regarding install locations > > Why? Why do packages? I would expect distributions to adopt > their own policies, so these policies would be distribution-specific. > > That said, I would expect distributions to be grouped according to > which of the several pre-existing standards they chose to be based > on (maybe Solaris standard and the LSB-FSH). I would think that if there were a common packaging and package repository, it could potentially make life easier for those that want to make their own distributions. If however, they do not wish to participate, they always have the option, as they do now, to build from source. > > 1. Are the Solaris and OpenSolaris goals one and the same? > > Given that these are completely different entities, it's > obvious that they aren't. In the areas of overlap, I would > expect them to be similar but not identical. It is not obvious to me. Many of the criteria ARC uses very closely mirror those of Solaris' Ideally we would create a configuration file, that would allow anyone to customize everything they needed. As do file system paths, as do a great number of policies. > > 2. OpenSolaris is not Solaris, IE: Can OpenSolaris set it's own > > standards, that do not necessarily align with Sun's? > > 1. For example can the OpenSolaris community choose to remove > > Java from OpenSolaris? > > Last I saw, java wasn't part of OpenSolaris. Solaris includes java, and > there are important pieces of software that require java, but whether java > is included is up to an individual distribution. > > > 2. Can OpenSolaris replace JDS with a more generic Gnome > > I'm not sure this is even a valid question. JDS is the Solaris desktop. > Any distribution can use whatever desktop it wishes. (Indeed, I would > expect that to be a key distinguishing feature.) JDS is part of OpenSolaris. (Check the source tree) > > 3. Can we dump the legacy weirdness > > Define weirdness. Some of this is compatibility. This is for each > distribution to decide - any distribution can inflict whatever weirdness > it wishes on its users. openwin, /usr/ucb, no single log directory, etc. > > 4. Is there a mandate that OpenSolaris must maintain backward > > compatibility with Solaris? > > Yes. Solaris is expected to provide strong compatibility guarantees. > As OpenSolaris is the foundation codebase for Solaris, we cannot > break compatibility. But whether any distribution is compatible with > Solaris, or even with older releases of itself, is up to that distribution. > At least by having compatibility in the foundations we can let > distributions be compatible if they wish. Earlier you said that Solaris is just another distro. Now it's the standard? > > 5. Can we change inconsistent paths without leaving symlinks? > > Again, something for an individual distribution to decide. Check the forums, when moving binary install locations, symlinks to the old location are being considered for inclusion in OpenSolaris > > 3. Shouldn't we remove all non core stuff from OpenSolaris? > > There isn't much non-core stuff there anyway. And I got the impression > that the aim was to enable the easy supply of much more software Ok let me restate. Can we remove all code that was not developed by Sun or the OpenSolaris community. (I am not advocating this, it is just a point of discussion)
