Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Ian Murdock wrote: >> Dave Miner wrote: >>> The project has to have a clear statement of what it will be initially - >>> is it a desktop that will attract people to OpenSolaris, or a minimal >>> base core to be used in building a bunch of distros? I believe that Ian >>> and Glynn have expressed strongly the former. > > Do I understand correctly that it won't/can't include anything that > isn't ARC-reviewed or ARC-review-bound?
On a practical level, in most cases you couldn't, unless you can manage to create a consolidation with radically different rules, and even then, it doesn't help with anything targeting the real consolidations. On a philosophical level, it's hard or perhaps impossible to reliably make any claims about backward compatibility, and cleanliness of architecture without such a process, so I think it would be foolish to wilfully ignore it. >> Yep. In my view, we're first and foremost building a distro that >> will grow the userbase. We should also have some notion of a core >> that's the compatibility baseline for derivatives, but I believe >> that's secondary and can be done as a subsetting exercise once we >> get to the distro. > > If the above is true, then wouldn't the incremental work required to > define a core along the way (as opposed to once we get there) be > really, really small? > Frankly, I think actually working on the project, rather than discussing it would be good for everyone involved at this point, and I think resolutions to many of the current topics of conversation would become far more reachable (or would just happen), as part of doing this. -- Rich _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
