On 30/09/2007, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote: > Was this evaluation done three years ago? I would seriously consider a > reevaluation if this is the case.
If you read his responses on pkg-discuss, you'll note his comment about evaluating when the package policy modules were there. That seems to indicate it was within the last year or so. > > Having looked at how we've developed Solaris in the past, and how I > > think Sun will construct distributions in the future, the monolithic > > nature of Conary was problematic. In particular, the control over the > > recipes seems like an unnecessary layering omission (to invent a term). > > I assume by "how we've developed Solaris in the past" you mean a > closed source, hidden development process. Regarding your comment "and > how I think Sun will construct distributions in the future". Is > OpenSolaris.org only a Sun marketing site? Will a community distro > just be another rev of internally designed Sun Solaris w/ a misleading > "open/community" label stuck on it? That's something for Project Indiana to answer, I think. I suspect Stephen's team and related folks are having to deal with what is appropriate for Sun. It is up to the community to determine what happens for OpenSolaris... > > As I've mentioned in the past, Sun produces a large amount of software > > via a variety of build systems, in clumps of varying sizes. Imposing > > a uniform recipe system is possibly culturally impossible; it is > > certainly a multiyear proposition. Asserting that a late stage in the > > process, like release engineering, be able to construct the bulk of > > this software is a strong position, and possibly not achievable. (A > > pure OSS OpenSolaris could have less trouble, depending on what > > software it chose to exclude.) At the time I examined Conary, its > > handling of binary packages was awkward. > > Please descibe this awkwardness of handling Binary packages. > > > The Conary source has been, understandably, written with Linux > > distributions in mind. Conary's policy modules are particularly > > coupled to Linux expectations and, at the time of evaluation, > > difficult to isolate. Later versions may have fixed this aspect. > > Have you spoken to anyone knowledgeable at rpath about these perceived > Linux couplings? Have you raised these issues with either the > OpenSolaris or Conary communities? He has. Please read the post here: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2007-September/000050.html I suggest subscribing to pkg-discuss. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst binarycrusader at gmail.com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth
