On Thu, 10 May 2007, Steve Stallion wrote: > 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.
OK. I guess all I can say then is that in this situation (especially given the acheivements and plans of the projects in question) that approach just doesn't work for me. (Of course maybe that's just me.) Eric > 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. >> >
