Eric,

The document was intended to be a dart board for everyone in the
community (primarily those you mentioned above which have a vested
interest in such a project) to well... throw darts at. It was just a
proposal, certainly not any type of an actionable specification.

I sincerely apologize to all if my intent was miscommunicated - The
project/community hierarchy is not the easiest to navigate as a
layman, and I had hoped that using the lists would suffice. I had
intended to spark more discussion concerning the topic and how we can
address this as a whole, rather than as separate groups.

I have spoken with some of those members - Lazlo Peter, Dennis Clarke,
and Stefan Teleman. A project like this has a huge impact on many
other groups, and I was hoping we could all meet and gather our
thoughts and commit something for others to see.

That said, I am not married to any specific plan or proposal, but I
did put this together to show others my thoughts regarding how these
issues could potentially be addressed.

Steve

On 5/10/07, Eric Boutilier <Eric.Boutilier at sun.com> wrote:
> [ I trimmed the lists in the Cc to sfwnv-discuss and ports-discuss ]
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, Steve Stallion wrote:
> > Eric,
> >
> > The document describes problems and/or missing features with each of
> > the projects you have posted.
> > framework to fill the gaps (namely distribution and support of
> > source-build and pre-build packages) for *anyone* who desires to
> > provide third party software, whether that is Sun, Blastwave, SFE,
> > etc.
>
> OK, but the premise still seems invalid to me. Reason being,
> from what I can tell, you wrote the proposal without first
> seeking input from the key lead people from the projects
> you're targeting. And not just SFW/CCD/JDS/Blastwave, e.g. Phil
> Brown, Duvall, Hahn, etc., but also, and maybe even more
> importantly, their counterparts in the projects under the
> Installation and Packaging Community Group.
>
> Eric
>
>
> > It is a middle ground for all of these projects to meet and
> > define something that benefits the user rather than our individual
> > egos.
> >
> > The intent of OPM is that it is a
> >
> > FWIW: There is absolutely no reason why pkgbuild would not be used as
> > the build agent and was in fact, the original intent.
> >
> > SFW/CCD has its own separate issues, which Dennis Clarke (and several
> > others) have been quite vocal about - particularly the fact that F/OSS
> > packages are not suited for long term support of a single revision
> > which is the traditional form in Solaris (hence the need for Blastwave
> > et all to build and install their own *duplicate* packages that
> > support newer revisions).
> >
> > If everything was working 'just fine' today, these types (and number
> > of) projects would simply not exist. You do not see competing projects
> > on other OS's (*BSD is an exccelnt example) because there is simply no
> > need - the OS distribution has everything a user needs to support
> > his/her own environment.
> >
> > The community has requested this time and time again. Several
> > implementations exist today. We need to come to a common agreement,
> > and move onto a single system.
>

Reply via email to