On 07/05/07, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> 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.
The proposal should be retitled then, and should focus on that. > > > 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) I suppose the real thing that needs to be defined here is what exactly you consider "OpenSolaris" to be? The FAQ says that: "http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/general_faq/#source"; Initially, the OpenSolaris project included source for the Solaris OS core kernel, networking support, libraries and commands. This set of source is often referred to as the OS/Networking consolidation (O/N). Since the launch, source from additional consolidations have been released, and the goal is to make as much of the Solaris OS source available as legally possible." I think most people think of "OpenSolaris" as the ON consolidation, since that really is the primary things around which all other consolidations center. JDS, etc. are part of the OpenSolaris project, but would not think of them as "OpenSolaris." So, you need to define exactly what you mean when you say "OpenSolaris" -- there is a difference between the project and the code, etc. > > > 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. That still doesn't define "weirdness." For example, are you saying you don't want to distribute what is in /usr/openwin or /usr/ucb? Or are you saying they shouldn't be part of the default path, and so on? What does "no single log" directory specifically mean? This proposal is starting to go off in several different directions. First it was software delivery, then packaging, then community consolidation, and now it seems to be a reference distribution, environment changes, a total rearrangement of the system and numerous other things. Rather than one specific proposal, this seems to be several under the guise of one. > > > 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? I think what he's trying to point out is that right now, things are unlikely to be integrated unless they maintain compatibility. Also, you will have a hard time convincing anyone in the community to break backwards compatibility. The strong backwards compatibility that Solaris has is one of its key strengths. When you break that, you greatly diminish Solaris or derivatives of OpenSolaris. > > > 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 I don't know what you're trying to say here. > > > 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) No, because some of that code is needed for a "minimal" system. I think what you're trying to say is can we remove everything that is not the "core" necessary for the base OS. Or, put in a different way, can we choose to not include all consolidations that are not "absolutely necessary." -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
