Again, lets hold off on making these decisions until the draft document is ready. I have already accounted for these issues.
What I am most concerned about at this point is the delivery of software rather than those that maintain it. Not that this isnt important, but it seems we are putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Steve On 5/4/07, 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 > > > Now, either we can get to a state where we can rapidly integrate new > > versions of software into the stable SFW tree very soon after their > > release (which seems unlikely, given that much of the software we're > > talking about doesn't have strong stability guarantees), or we need > > a separate track into which the new versions can be injected. And yes, > > this will often mean that there are multiple versions of the same app > > on the system at the same time. > > Software is vetted through Blastwave S11. > > > So I think we need at least 2 different efforts. What the second > > one ought to be based on I'm not sure. > > > > (And yes, even for the software I myself build and maintain, > > I usually find myself maintaining multiple versions - one for > > stability and maintaining dependencies, and a second to get > > all the new features, and maybe others.) > > Exactly... I suspect the SFW and coolwave maintainers will eventually > have a good deal of overlap. > > -Brian > _______________________________________________ > ports-discuss mailing list > ports-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ports-discuss >
