On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:59 -0700, Philip Brown wrote: > (forgive me for changing the order of quotes a bit, but I think it makes > sense, and still keeps original intentions...) > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 04:52:48PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:33 -0700, Philip Brown wrote: > > > > Nothing says that opensolaris has to have "source packages". > > > 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. > > for starters, the general community doesnt need to be able to > "re-upload to unstable". Only maintainers do :-)
I'm sorry, but your statement is not always correct. Only developers do. :-) > But more importantly: > > The critical thing here, is to have SOME kind of auto-(re)build mechanism. > (and ideally, attempted-auto-update mechanism) > Whether or not that is done by "packages", is irrelevant. A package is an distribution cell. It should be designed to be self sufficient and should has a capability to evolve on its own. > debian source packages are one way of doing it. it works. but it's not the > only way that can work. Sure. Erast _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
