> 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
Note: bullet number six in the draft below includes a link to this thread. Does it make sense to change bullet #6 to bullet #1? > 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. > > > >> > 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 > > >
