On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:33 -0700, Philip Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:19:23PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > The problem I'm seeing is that SVR4 packaging system wasn't developed to > > inter-operate with upstream tarballs and patching system is not an easy > > one to enable. At least it is not as easy as with Debian or RPM. That > > means patches for particular upstream project A are not part of A SVR4 > > package itself and instead stored separately somewhere. > > > > > The following is in the context of the solaris "patch system", not other > "patch systems": > > > (binary) patches, are to update binaries. > Binaries are the results of a particular source tree. (at a particular > version) > > "upstream tarballs" get integrated with a source tree, not binaries. > An appropriate technical person should be merging the source together, and > determining if a binary "patch" is needed, or whether a full new release > of a package is appropriate. > > SVR4 packaging is primarily geared towards binaries, not source trees, IMO. > Personally, I dont see that as a problem. see below.
A missing capability of having source package reduces community involvement in development of a package. In Nexenta/Debian you can do: apt-get source gnome-panel than fix, rebuild and re-upload to "unstable" APT repository. Well, in Nexenta we are not there yet (re-upload part does not work yet), but we will be there soon. Similar things with RPM & yum. And sure, having patches bundled with a particular upstream tarball will eliminate a mess I'm seeing. > > This is what other distributions do, their *source* packages usually > > contains upstream tarball + set of distribution patches on top of it. > > And sooner or later those patches will migrate to their upstream or > > simply rejected. > > Nothing says that opensolaris has to have "source packages". > But if it does: the SVR4 packaging system could still be used for it. Right, SVR4 could be extended with scripting stuff etc. But also pkg-get and remote repository needs to be extended as well. > Switching gears a bit, though: last I heard, debian does not have a binary > patching system. just a source code packaging system, that primarily exists as > "original tarball + set of patches", as you noted. sound like debdelta which has been around for years is what you are looking for. > I'm not sure I'd call that a "patching system" for source code either. more > like a pre-bundled, pre-determined patch set + autobuilder. Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
