On 18 Nov 2010, at 20:21, Albert Lee 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)
All completely fine - the only point I would like clarification on is "No consideration for the converse ability to run software built for illumos on Solaris 11". I'm completely fine with it not being a development concern, but I'm struggling to understand why, eg GNU Nano, compiled on Illumos wouldn't work on Solaris 11. As far as I know nobody has proposed modifying the compiler suites (with Sun Studio we can't, for example) and most 3rd party software hasn't been written to use specific Illumos features (yet). So why would a binary compiled on Illumos look any different to one compiled on Solaris 11? I'm definitely *not* asking Illumos to change their stance on this, this is more so that myself (and no doubt others) can fully comprehend the ramifications/future considerations of the statement. I think it would be a shame if FOSS software compiled on Illumos/OI didn't run on Solaris 11, but obviously it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would just be useful. > 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. Absolutely agree - the two projects should be working very closely together for obvious reasons and I'm sure everyone on the OpenIndiana project, myself included, want to make life as easy and as accommodating as possible for the Illumos developers. > 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. When you start feeding people crack they will always come back for more; if the only source is contaminated, then so be it, they need their fix. Sun put all the best technological developments into OpenSolaris and these were features people wanted desperately to use - and people deployed OpenSolaris into production because it was on the whole a very stable OS. It was inevitable oi147 would end up being used in production, despite warning people not to. But that doesn't mean we have a responsibility to make compromises in future builds just to cater for people who deployed oi147 into production; people were warned. But we should, for what I hope are obvious reasons, try not to piss off our user base, and there will no doubt be simple, easy things we can do or things we should avoid with this goal in mind that won't have any impact on the bigger picture. Switching to Illumos is completely fine and was already the plan for the next release after oi_148, I thought everybody was already aware that was the plan. > 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. That sounds fantastic - thank you. I'm hoping to get you some RE help in January when my new guy starts. > So let's make sure we're all on the same page. Given illumos' > self-imposed constraints, what are the primary concerns of > OpenIndiana? I'll stuff my concerns into my reply to Garrett's next mail. Cheers, Alasdair _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
