On 04/05/07, Brian Gupta <brian.gupta at gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/4/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/4/07, David.Comay at sun.com <David.Comay at sun.com> wrote: > > > With respect to CCD and SFW, I've been thinking along the same lines. > > > In general, I completely agree with this although longer term I don't > > > see a need to introduce any more CCD packages. Instead what I would > > > propose is that all such externally-derived open source be integrated > > > into the SFW effort. CCD could continue to exist for Solaris 10 but > > > for future releases, externally-derived open source could come through > > > SFW. > > > > I don't like this. The problem with it is that if it follows existing > > practices > > Keep in mind by having Blastwave's S11 consolidation, following > OpenSolaris' it will be possible for an Sun Solaris 11 customer to > type: sfw-get upgrade-latest gawk, and have it write over the included > version. (We get rid of patches, and just upgrade packages) Some other > option might be upgrade-base, and upgrade-unstable
I don't see how. Bastwave is what it is because it has its own isolated software stack. It is not built such that the dependences included with Solaris 10 are used in the build process (as far as I know). It is not designed to replace the base system. I'm also very unsettled by your proposal that this system should arbitrarily try to undo Sun official patches, packages, etc. There are many of us that do NOT want a package system that is designed to replace the base system's packages. -- "Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
