John Plocher wrote: > Brian Gupta wrote: >> Currently we are have reached a point where we have Conary packaging >> system running on Solaris (both Sparc and x86). > >> We seek guidance as to the proper course of action. (What criteria is the >> ARC looking for?) > > > There are several questions that come to my mind on this (or, > indeed, any packaging effort - rpm, yum, apt-get, conary or > even ips): > > 0) A meta-question to the community at large: > There is a larger question of how we (the community) deal with > potentially divisive proposals like this. In particular, do > we have effective mechanisms ands structures in place to answer > the question of "do we really *want* to do this?" - and if so, > how do we invoke them in this situation? >
I think the answer to your question of scope, below, and the questions that flow from it, is the key to identifying whether this is in fact a controversial, potentially divisive, proposal. [good questions ellided] > 5) What is the relationship between this project and the others being > done in the install/packaging CG? This sounds like a design choice; > what has the CG itself said about it? ... have you asked? > The project has, since its establishment, been non-communicative with the Installation and Packaging community. There was sufficient support to sponsor the evaluation project when it was proposed, based on the limited scope of that proposal. It doesn't appear to have a mailing list archived on opensolaris.org, so I'm not sure where the work has been occurring. Dave
