On Jan 6, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Peter Tribble <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jim Klimov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-24 18:48, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd love to see a minimalist distro take up the call to "post process"
>>> the illumos-gate IPS manifests into SVR4 packages.  (I significantly
>>> think that *reverting* the packaging back into the old SVR4 packages is
>>> a huge mistake -- I know some others have done this in the name of
>>> compatibility with S10 -- I think Joerg and Peter have both trod that
>>> path.  Long descriptive package names, and the reorganization that we
>>> have got in our current manifests is not something I would just throw
>>> out.)
> 
> Some work has gone on, but it's incomplete. I find the new long package
> names to be no more descriptive than the old (and often less helpful,
> as they imply meaning and structure which does not in fact exist). And
> the organization - package boundaries and dependencies - still needs
> a lot of work.

For me, changing the names means diverging from the illumos upstream.  I don't 
think that the package names mean much to me, though the SUNWxxx names were 
pretty terrible.  (If you aren't a solaris guy, how would you under stand what 
SUNWcsl is?  Certainly system-libraries is more descriptive!)

> 
>> Well, compatibility with S10 (and older) is a huge bonus for a distro
>> that would seek to be "the opensource replacement for legacy Solaris"
>> and would be easy to update into (i.e. via LiveUpgrade at best).
> 
> Define "compatibility". Binary? (Tricky, with S10, as the proliferation
> of open-source libraries drops you into the same dependency and
> compatibility issues that plague other OSes.)  Difficult at the packaging
> and administration layer as so much has changed - claiming
> compatibility may be unsustainable. Having something that is
> familiar and works the same way should be possible, but that's a
> different claim entirely.

Packaging compatibility is probably of dubious merit.  I don't know of any ISV 
software that properly relies on or expresses dependencies on core SVR4 
packages.  

API compatibility is far more key, and an area where illumos has done a decent 
job, IMO.

Administrative compatibility is something that the OpenSolaris guys thoroughly 
busted with SMF, pkg5, and other sweeping changes.   Not sure how much that is 
a barrier to adoption, though.

        - Garrett



-------------------------------------------
illumos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to