On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Paul Jakma wrote: > I think it'd be cleaner to just rewrite their makefiles in automake, but > that suggestion didn't seem to go down well on the alpine list.
But there is no reason to change what they have, it works and compiles with studio as-is. configure seems to work on Solaris. > The path question is an ARC issue and is, I believe, settled. It goes in > /usr/bin. Yes, this is still not clear how the sfwnv and/or contrib will work yet. > Well, there's two things here: > > a) What a package should deliver to the system (files, dependencies) > > b) How we put packages together > > Slightly different, but still impacting each other. For the former we have > the ARC. Yes, kinda. As long as we can ensure that we get upstream changes, and that any changes we make are passed along upstream, IPS will distribute for us and that's not even really a package at all... We merely need a way to accomplish that and use the libraries on the system so we don't duplicate. > Speaking as a maintainer of a package in SFW, I think it fails pretty > badly on the latter point (least it did earlier in the year, and I doubt > it's changed ;) ). I wouldn't say that as a user, it has actually provided me the applications that I use, I used to get pine from there, as an example. Now with alpine, there is no reason to use a piece of software that has a less attractive license for the same purpose. > Has the ARC changed its mind this year and reversed its stance established in > various cases in years prior? Either way, the reasoning is in the ARC > archives. ;) I don't know. AFAIK everything is going in /usr, but it's not clear on what sfwnv and/or contrib will allow, the lines are fuzzy to me. I have always referred to the companion cd as sfw, so that is confusing. It has served me well, and been a good resource in the past. It also provided the sources, which was important to me. In that regard it hasn't failed me at all.:-) -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 IHV/OEM Group
