On 9/30/07, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> 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.
I agree with Peter on this. As I was reading through the rest of the message, I forgot about that rather aggressive statement at the beginning. Evaluation by a larger group is certainly due before deciding to make it the standard packaging and distrbution framework. > 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. Overall, I think a variant of the proposal that is short enough to read in a couple (three is "a few", more than a couple) minutes with a pointer to a more detailed technical view of Conary would be more digestible. It's not clear if Conary is ready for the task today or if it will require some work to work on OpenSolaris. It also isn't clear how far OpenSolaris is from being ready to be usable with Conary. I suspect those are things that many people would like to know up front. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
