On 9/29/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some recent discussions seem to indicate that IPS has already been
> selected as the packaging system of choice going forward.
>
> For example, the Distribution Constructor has IPS explicitly labelled
> on the architecture diagram. I asked about whether that implied
> that the DC was tied to IPS and it seems as though it may well be.
> (http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=40417)
>
> Also, in discussing the transfer module functional specification (see
> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=157809#157809)
> it's pretty well implied that IPS is going to be used.
>
> There have been other rumours and indications. It's all very
> uncertain, and there needs to be some clarity here.
>
> So, has it indeed been decided that IPS is going to be used as the
> packaging system?
I think that this question should be asked in the scope of some
particular distribution or a family of distributions. Indeed, the other
distributions out there seem to be using some other means of
binary material delivery. There is no signs that their authors will
give up their current technology in favor of IPS (that doesn't necessary
mean that they won't do that at some point in the future).
Moreover, just a number of hours ago Brian Gupta suggested
Conary as a packaging system. I think that some level of diversity
in this realm will only do good to overall success of the OpenSolaris.
After all it is the competition that forces people to invent new
things ans improve existing ones.
--
Regards,
Cyril
