On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:19 -0800, Mike Ditto wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I'm not sure what an "OpenSolaris compliant" sticker would be designed > >>to achieve, though, or why SVR4 packages are necessarily a part of it. > > Well I hope that the proliferation of OpenSolaris-based distros doesn't > create a proliferation of binary/packaging compatibility standards > for off-the-shelf and downloadable software. > > > OK, let us call it "Solaris compliant". People like to know whether > > things that work on Sun Solaris would also work on an OpenSolaris based > > distro. > > So "Solaris compatible" is one ABI/packaging standard that a distro can offer. > (Actually it should be a particular release, like "Solaris 10 compatible".) > There may be room for other ABI/packaging standards, too (but as I said, not > too many). For example, I'd be interested in a "reduced historical > compatibility" OpenSolaris ABI that is willing to forgo all compatibility > with system administration interfaces and other expensive burdens and maybe > even use new packaging formats, such that this new ABI could be supported by > future releases of Sun Solaris as well as alternative OpenSolaris distros > that might or might not choose to implement the "Solaris 10" ABI.
I don't know what package-level compatability you are talking about... Today, *Solaris software distributes in next ways: 1) source tarball 2) binary tarball 3) autoextracting scripts .sh 4) SVR4 packages 5) custom installers I think it will be unfortunate if SVR4 packaging will be a requirement for OpenSolaris compatability... Neither distribution vendors nor software vendors should not be forced by this. IMHO. If software vendor decides to release .deb packages for Nexenta GNU/Solaris, why not? On another hand, in Nexenta we have "alien" technology which could potentially convert between SVR4 <=> Debian formats on the fly. The only thing is dependencies, i.e. some software might require Nexenta, Belenix or Solaris specific software to be pre-installed, which complicates the picture a bit... > But if we expect to buy or download pre-packaged software there needs to be > some kind of "virtual sticker" for each ABI that lets us know whether the > software and the OS work together. Again, look at M$ Windows. It does not have any package management built-in, and it is still OK. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
