* Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> [2007-09-29 13:19]: > 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) Yes, Karen and I had a discussion--two now, I guess--about making sure that the DC could perform its construction with an IPS repository and commands. As I mentioned in an earlier message, I think that the DC could be written so that it supports both IPS and SysV. Maintaining the SysV side might not be a cost that the DC developers are willing to bear in the long term.
> 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. I haven't talked directly with Moinak. > 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 certainly admit to talking with the developers of the various install sub-projects and asking them to make accommodations for image packaging. In all meetings so far, the IPS feature set--even in its prototype form--makes most things easier, and the things it currently complicates we know how to work around. To be clear: image packaging is under development, its developers can be influenced and its design adjusted by well-reasoned arguments, and image packaging will go through ARC review and code review prior to integration in a consolidation. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
