On Mon, 7 May 2007, Brian Gupta wrote: >> 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.
My mistake, I missed that. > Does it make sense to change bullet #6 to bullet #1? I'm fine with it as #6. Eric > >> 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 >> > >> >
