On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Albert Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, Garrett's attempt forced people to respond really defensively... > so let's try again. > > For the record, here are goals (and anti-goals) of illumos that are > relevant to OpenIndiana: > > - The ability to run software built for Solaris 10 using interfaces > that weren't already subject to change between releases (obsolete > interfaces need not apply) > - The ability to run software built for Solaris 11 on a best-effort > basis, since it is both an unknown and a moving target > - No consideration for the converse ability to run software built for > illumos on Solaris 11 (that is not to say it won't happen to work, but > it won't be a concern for development) > - Freedom to introduce new features in a way that is incompatible with > Solaris 11 > - Freedom to remove features with known and limited affect (obviously > not subverting compatibility, but compromises are inevitable) > > This is the big picture, and the goals are near what OpenIndiana can > realistically hope to achieve. Sometimes there seems to be the > appearance of a false dichotomy. What illumos (not just Garrett) needs > is not all that complicated, and it's mostly for the OpenIndiana > developers to work closely with the illumos developers on changes that > have an impact outside of ON, so illumos can have a proper > self-hosting platform. There has been unfortunately little high-level > communication between developers of illumos and OpenIndiana and not > enough overlap in membership, and that needs to change. > > In any case, users choosing to use what was explicitly stated to be > the first development release of OpenIndiana in production certainly > made a mistake (although possibly the real issue for many was choosing > to deploy the OpenSolaris development build in the first place), and > we *should* not feel responsible for the effects of that decision. > However, as a conscientious person I believe that we *can* move > forward with illumos without completely abandoning them. > > oi_148 is nearly done, and I apologise for the delay, I have approval > to finish performing the RE tasks today with our current bits and get > it out the door. I believe our originally stated plan of providing an > illumos build for this release in an additional repository is feasible > (and I've been doing regular builds) and provides the illumos > developers what they need, and Garrett has agreed that it is > reasonable. > > So let's make sure we're all on the same page. Given illumos' > self-imposed constraints, what are the primary concerns of > OpenIndiana? > > -Albert >
I should also mention that the real targets for oi_148 aren't the specific versions of the consolidations we're delivering but addressing specific concerns with the first release and making sure we have the processes in place for future builds. -Albert _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
