Eric Ray wrote: > > Dave Miner wrote: > >>>> What if I just want to create custom branding to use on my own >>>> desktop? From that perspective it doesn't seem to fit into DC at all. >>>> >>> Sure that's different. That's not the point. >>> >> It's entirely the point. There are multiple needs to do essentially the >> same thing. >> >>> Suppose I want to construct my own distribution of OpenSolaris >>> as a delivery vehicle for my FOO software (which doesn't use >>> Solaris packaging). Does it really make sense to have me go off and >>> have to learn Solaris packaging, or should DC just make it >>> easy to do that? >>> >> I don't believe I said anything about requiring such a hypothetical >> developer to know anything about packaging. Having a tool which hides >> that is fine if there's a constituency which it would serve. >> >>> I understand your concern about scope creep, but so far, 100% of >>> the people I've talked with about this have IMMEDIATELY asked >>> about rebranding or placing stuff on the desktop. I think it's >>> a legit need for this audience. >>> >> It's not a matter of scope creep, but ensuring that the right people own >> solving a problem. The distro constructor shouldn't, IMHO, know >> anything about the mechanics of branding a desktop, nor should the >> functionality to do so be specific to it. APOC, for example, provides >> some of this sort of thing in a run-time context for enterprise >> environments. Does it already have a tool for generating such things? >> If not, should it? Understanding the answers to those sorts of >> questions seems important context to this discussion. > > Are we creating an ISO constructor, or a Distro constructor? If the > former, I agree with your more restrictive view. If the latter, > though, I think that we should attempt to meet the big picture > needs of the community. That doesn't mean that we have to write > all the code, but provide access to the tools needed. >
I don't at all believe we are building merely an ISO constructor, as there are other outputs besides ISO's (network install images, for example) which are required. But I'd rather you define the difference you see between the terms than me guess at it... I believe it is reasonable for the Distro Constructor team to gather requirements such as this and work with the technology experts (such as in the desktop) to get the right functionality supplied to leverage and integrate into the construction process, which I think is the same thing as what you're saying above. I don't think the Distro Constructor project should go off and build its own solutions unless it proves to be a problem specific to its domain. Dave
