Peter Tribble wrote: >> On 9/28/07, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote: >>> Proposal: Adopt Conary as the standard packaging and distribution >>> framework for OpenSolaris. > > I can't agree to that request. For one. it involves making a snap decision, > and I simply don't think we can just go ahead and do that. > > For two, to make such a decision would require two things; first, to have > developed a packaging strategy based on future needs and current > shortcomings, that would give us a framework in which to make such > decisions. Second, to have done a proper community evaluation of > Conary. > > Now, I'm going to try and start a conversation on the strategy part. > > For Conary, perhaps a minor revision of Brian's request to create > a project to evaluate Conary for its suitability in the OpenSolaris > context, and that that project have equal standing (in terms of eligibility > to be chosen) as any other proposed packaging system. > > (Related to the last one, I would love to be able to propose that > the existing SVR4 packaging system be enhanced to meet our future > needs, as I believe that it can not only do so but do so extremely > well. It has 4 things going for it: it exists; it works at the moment; > systems and admins know how to use it; it's compatible with large > quantities of existing 3rd-party software. Because of interdependencies > with patching, the installer, and live upgrade, nobody in the (non-Sun) > community can actually do any serious work on the SVR4 packaging > system, so I'm stuck.)
I'd have to agree, I have not seen any reasons why SVR4 cannot be used, and in my opinion it should be seriously considered, if I saw reasons for not going with it then perhaps I would be happier. Enda >
