-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't have a problem with two separate ports. Like for people who want Solaris based system for stability and ZFS, and a solaris based one. A nice and practical upshot of this is the possibility of a kopensolaris-amd64 port which has been a bit of an issue with the current ON based system. The only question is if we ever became an offical Ubuntu port, which one would/should be accepted upstream. If we're legitimentally going to set up a second port, then I'll install dak (not mini-dak), and configure it for this adventure (mini-dak is great for single ports, not so much on multiple ones in my experience).
As a second benefit, its likely the base system will not require the same amount of work to get buildds working, so you can probably leverage the existing Debian autobuilder system, and get hardy built much faster than we can since we need to work on improving the ON base. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjUHccACgkQpblTBJ2i2psiEwCfRh5CVJD4XE9VxQ70f8xrz7Az lBwAnRdGRj2RhRskq4ElXCIIqdgAlARi =esqL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Per Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not Solaris, but it is GNU/kOpenSolaris. :-) > > If I might state my opinion, I believe diversity is a strength and choice is > a good thing. If some people want to go for Solaris libc, let them do so; > likewise for those who prefer an even more GNU-styled userland (with GNU > libc being the cornerstone). What we should note though is that Nexenta > (CP2) is already much more GNU-like than Solaris has ever been, in my > experience... Which is one the reasons I like Nexenta more than I've ever > come to like Solaris, after working with a Solaris-based Perl web > application for around one year. Of course, my background is much more > GNU/Linux-based so I'm biased... > > Anyway, I think GNU Solaris should be able to "umbrella" both of these two > "branches". They can probably not be combined in the same "distribution", > because we are talking about such core pieces of the system that it would be > weird having GNU libc installed when packages have been compiled against > Sun's libc, and vice versa. Of course, we could have double packages > available for each and every package - one compiled against GNU libc and one > compiled against Sun libc. But that would really be a kind of weird > operating system... It is much better (IMO) to let the branches be branches. > They can share the same infrastructure; both of them can have their > autobuilders (when they are ready) hosted on the same machine, but in > different zones. And so forth. > > For the time being though, it might be best to hold some kind of > "referendum" among the core developers (which I am not a part of myself) of > GNU Solaris as to which of these branches that should be emphasized. It's > not like we have 1000 developers just sitting around and waiting for more > work to be done, so a bit of focus (with the clear allowance of letting > people with different opinions "do their own thing", within the same > infrastructure) might be a good thing. Does this sound good? > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Michael Casadevall > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> This poses an interesting question then. With this, we could, in >> theory dump the ON userland, and go pure GNU, more inline with the >> other Debian/Ubuntu ports. That being said, I still feel diversity is >> a strength, and is it still Solaris if we dump the userland (and with >> it, binary and script compability?) >> Michael > > > -- > Best regards, > Per Lundberg > _______________________________________________ gnusol-devel mailing list gnusol-devel@lists.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/gnusol-devel
