On 11/14/2007 12:08 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > On 11/14/07, Marty Duey <Marty.Duey at sun.com> wrote: >> On 11/13/2007 7:28 PM, Ignacio Marambio Cat?n wrote: >> >>> a binary repository would imply that all the distribution agree on a >>> package manager, that, in my opinion is not acceptable >>> >>> nacho >> If a given distribution didn't use the same packaging system would that >> distribution be eliminating the possibility of using the thousands >> (eventually) of packages that will be created for IPS? And how many >> packaging systems does anyone really think that commercial ISVs and OSS >> communities will support for an OpenSolaris derivative? I suggest less >> than two. If Solaris Next will use IPS I think the choice is clear. > > You could take that argument one step further. OpenSolaris (and > Solaris next) should be compatible with Solaris current. Solaris currently > uses SVR4 packaging. How many commercial ISVs are going to > support anything else? Especially as they support back to > Solaris 8 or so. > > So if packaging compatibility is a requirement, we should just stop > working on IPS and say that every OpenSolaris distro must use > SVR4 packaging. > > While I regard any decision to adopt IPS as premature, I don't think > it's realistic to constrain innovation. > > Isn't the whole point of a different distro is that it's different in some > way? >
I think the advantages of a improved means for installation and update would compel application providers to support a new packaging system. Both for their sake and their customers. As for compatibility with older releases of Solaris, doesn't IPS support SVR4 packages? If so, companies nor communities would have to change unless they wanted to do so (and who wouldn't?). Marty
