On Mon, 7 May 2007, Brian Gupta wrote: > > Peter Tribble wrote: > >> 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.
Since this project proposal is rooted in the (ever popular) concept of a reference distro, it might be a good idea to include a pointer to this recent and ongoing discussion: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=29084&tstart=0 It's a discussion about the concept of a reference distribution, and because it's taking in the Marketing mailing-list I would think it would be very complementary to this one. Eric > >> > 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) > _______________________________________________ > sfwnv-discuss mailing list > sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss >
