Brian Gupta wrote: > I didn't read the whole discussion, put I did read the post you > pointed out. Whether the packages are installed in /opt/csw, /opt/sfw, > /usr/sfw, or /usr/gnu, they are still being kept at arms length. I > personally don't think picking yet another place to install open > source packages is the way to go. I have been told by multiple > sources, that the goal is to put everything inside the OS, not off to > the corner somewhere. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I > don't think it matters whether it's usr vs opt, it is still isolated. > (Just out of curiosity, why /usr/gnu vs /usr/sfw? Aren't we going to > be bundling in some BSD licensed code as well? Also why setup yet > another?) If I'm one of the "multiple sources", I don't think this is quite right.
We are intent on NOT separating objects based on if the FOSSness of the source. One thing many of us long time Sun/Solaris dudes have trouble groking is that its all FOSS now. No such decision has been made about separating objects based on the support model or distributor of the objects. The support model IS NOT to be confused with the "stability guarantee". /usr/sfw was actually separation based on stability, not on source of the source. The stability message is now to be only (but religiously) communicated through documentation (man pages). If "support model" or "distribution source" should be separated in the file system is something I hope comes from this discussion. > I want to see if we can agree on what needs to be done. Please respond > to my 6 points. I would like to quickly get a ball rolling for those > points that we can agree on. Particularly those that require financial > resources from Sun. > > We may want to blast mail the user groups at some point to bounce > ideas, and recruit fresh blood. > > Steve, > > 1) No need to ship free machines unless you are talking JDS stuff. > (Sun does however need to make a pool or shared servers available for > these package maintainers to use.) > 2) I am willing to contribute as much as I can. So far I am really > only committed to one major project. I was planning to pick up more as > time passed, but think I will hold off to help with this larger > initiative. > 3) No JDS tools for package updating. This must be command line first. > 3) Keep up the good work. I remember way back when, when you were the > only place to get a working gcc build. (Of course back then the first > thing I did was download the source and recompile it). :) Good bullets. > Everyone, > > It sounds like we have consensus on merging the various groups into > one. (SFW/GNU/CCD). Can we consider that as something that is ready > for an ARC proposal? I don't see an ARC proposal here. It sounds like you have consensus on organizational boundaries - ARC don't approve those. > Cheers, > Brian - cheers as well, - jek3 (Joseph Kowalski)
