Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > Bart Smaalders wrote, On 12/12/2007 19:33: > > Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > >> Darren Kenny wrote, On 12/12/2007 12:34: > >> > >>> but that's not how it's done right now, and I don't know if there is > >>> any intention on going that way unless the community really push for > >>> it... > >> > >> I do hope so.. I have used that a million time on Debian. It is a > >> really handy way of taking advantage of having the source code > >> available. > > > > IPS doesn't include a build system for the same reason it doesn't > > specify an IDE to be used for editing source files - it's not the > > problem we're trying to solve. > > > > The prime requirement for a build system is reproducible builds; > > given the proper tool chain, and build machine OS release, > > anyone can produce the same set of bits anywhere from the source > > code. > > > > Today, Sun's build environments are broken into "consolidations"; > > these are sets of software built at once, with internal dependencies > > resolved from the just developed bits. This allows us to consider > > interfaces purely internal to the consolidation as private, and > > since all components of the consolidation are always built and delivered > > as a set, we can avoid having to carefully version and control those > > private interfaces. In other words, if I can update all the > > producers and consumers of an interface w/ a single putback or push > > or commit, I avoid significant disruption and flag days, etc. > > > > Dividing most current Solaris consolidations into source packages that > > could be build separately would require a very substantial amount > > of effort to careful version and control all private interfaces. > > There is not need for that, actually. There could be source packages > that would produce many binary packages; that is why I said it would > need both the source to binary relations and order of those relations. > > Let's imagine the worst possible case: you need to build the complete > ON consolidation in order to get a little binary package built. It > would not be perfect, but it would be much better than having nothing. > > In fact, I suppose that we will eventually start dividing big > consolidations into packages -think of JDS, it is big set of > independent source packages. > > So, my points were: > > - Having source packages and binary packages relations is really > useful. In fact, it is something that has proved to be helpful in > other OSes and that many users miss. > > - There wouldn't be any *real* need to change the consolidation > system. It wouldn't be very efficient because of the large builds, > but again, that would be much better than missing the feature. And, > in fact, we are using LOT of F/OSS software that is not based on > that sort of consolidations. > > - I would have said that the state of the art kind of forced us to > implement it. Even if you wanted to think of it like a > "nice-to-have", it is a very important one if you think that we're > targeting developers. >
You're missing the point. ON developers don't build from source packages; they'll build from a mercurial workspace. Why would anyone who's not working on ON compile it from source, and why should the OpenSolaris community spend the man years needed to support this? - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
