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". There has been references to Ubuntu universes. They are pretty similar to what I see asserted as "the right thing". (They are aligned differently - license rather than some poorly defined measure of quality.)
What everybody seems to be missing is that all these repositories on a platform basis. Isn't the axis we are talking about relevant to a per-user basis? (Early on this collection of threads, I mentioned that using packaging to separate such things was rejected by the CTO of the era (Rob). I don't think anything has changed to alter this view.) Assuming we are heading towards an OpenSolaris project to deal with the asserted problems, shouldn't this project/community be working on a requirements spec (or equivalent) rather than starting from "Repositories are cool. Let's see how well they fit the broader problem."? >> 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. Well, sorta. I fully agree with the concept. Maybe `sed -e "s/ARC/SAC/g"`? "ARC" has no resources. "SAC" has resources, but very limited ones. > liane Gotta meet you some time. I like what you are saying. - cheers, - jek3
