> so in "integrated". As Jim says, the cost of > transforming s > given something from "aggregate" to "integrated" is > pretty high, > so we need to carefully pick and choose. (The > difference between > the "experimental" and "aggregate" repos is probably > just a > function of who can decide to push packages into the > repo: > uncontrolled -vs- controlled).
To my mind, there's some other differences between "experimental" and "aggregate", namely that for the latter, security and perhaps even supportability (within narrower than usual limits perhaps) should be still be considered, while "experimental" is on the order of "compiles with minimal changes" or "proof of concept - not fully tested"; lots of disclaimers appropriate there. IMO critical for integrating external material would be whether they'll accept solaris-specific patches; if not, the cost of keeping in sync would be steep, and stagnation likely. But I do see a definite point in both distinguishing between aggregation and integration, and having both, with the distinction not only affecting process but the consequences of the distinction made clear for the end user of the repositories. This message posted from opensolaris.org
