John Plocher wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> My issue is that if this is "good enough" for the community (of Linux >> users), this is good enough to allow this to be integrated into Solaris. > > Uhmmmmm..... > > If it is good enuf for Linux, it most certainly should be available > for use on (Open)Solaris, but that is not sufficient in and of itself > to be integrated into (Open)Solaris. > > The difference, in my mind, is whether or not these things should be > going into the "core" repository (and thus are things that the core > stuff can depend on) -vs- things in the "other stuff that is not core" > repository. > > -John OK. People seem to want to pick on my exact words.
Let me try again. We (Solaris/OpenSolaris) get to pick and choose from the broad spectrum of available FOSS, but other than proper integration into Solaris, we don't get to second guess the decisions of the individual communities. Union made a decision with respect to hardlink support. We need to get over it that we probably would have made a different choice. Until we have a repository, much less, core and non-core repositories, we are living in a fantasy. The proposal is to drop Unison into that great WOS which comes on the Solaris distribution. There is not repository,.. heck there isn't even a reasonable set of metaclusters. I was one who believed that having a repository could solve world hunger. Although having a repository would truly be a great thing, it doesn't solve many of the issues we seem to be facing. I think the next time I see a view which is based on the premise of having a "core" repository, I'll probably send it directly to /dev/null. I should also point out that this discussion is based on a single line from my positing and taken completely out of context and (this discussion about repositories) is completely orthogonal from the Unison proposal. People, can we please focus? - jek3
