Liane Praza wrote: > (I'm not going to respond to every point. I think I've made the case > I'd like to make, and don't need to subject everyone to our quibbling > about who is more correct. It won't resolve anything without someone > actually writing a case which establishes precedent for a wide variety > of software.) > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> Liane Praza wrote: >> >>> Ah, the value-add location like we had with /usr/sfw/gcc or value-add >>> repository of /opt/sfw? >>> >> No, not necessarily in a different path! Just a different *respository* >> for the package. Where the package installs into is not relevant (IMO) >> to this particular discussion. >> > > Sure, but how do I know I'm supposed to install stuff from the other > repository? You've just changed "different path" to "different repository". > > True, but it's possible that the stuff available in this repository could be placed very 'In your face' during Install, and afterwords.
Virtually all Linux distributions have 'channels' on their update programs to find software packages that aren't included in the distribution proper. If the Solaris package update/install GUI is obvious, available and approachable enough, I don't think it will seem that unusal for immigrant users/admins/developers. An additional benefit of a separate repository, is that much of this stuff releases at different rates than Solaris. Putting any of these things on a Solaris DVD, means that by the time the DVD gets released, most of this stuff will be out of date and users will want something new. So a separate repository allows updating of these packages independent of the Solaris release schedule, and probably (for the most part) independent of the other packages inthe repository. Putting stuff directly in Solaris, and having it be out of date by the time it ships, will leave the users still wanting and using a BlastWave type repository for them to keep up to date. I'd hope that the existence of this repository doesn't automatically mean that *all* FOSS will end up there. But how to decide which ends up where.... -Kyle (Outsider ;) ) >> We have no way to indicate via ARC (at the >> moment) which parts make up the "core" bits that users can depend on >> (and which most distributions would hopefully therefore include) and >> which bits are just random FOSS that may or may not be present, and >> which have only the most tenuous level of support guarantees, if any. >> > > Eh? Every ARC case publishes stability. That stability goes into > manpages. If we can't indicate through ARC what things people can > safely build on, there's really something horribly wrong and ARC should > deliver tools to publish what it spends so much time talking about. > > liane > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org >
