"Shawn Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. You mistaken. We didn't change anything related to core libraries
> > and applications. Changes only related to packaging but than again,
> > packaging supposed to be changed, or otherwise what is the value behind
> > any of distribution derivatives?
>
> No, I am not mistaken. Just because you didn't change the existing
> userland, but added to it, makes you divergent.
>
> Remember that ON is a bundle of *all* the userland.
Not true: ON contians e.g. parts of the "new" volume mamagement system only.
> > You mistaken again - SVR4 packaging is well supported (or at least we
> > try to be compatible here) option for us. *And* it is NOT part of ON.
>
> No I am not. IPS != SVR4 packaging.
>
> I suspect IPS will eventually be part of ON. When that happens and as
> SVR4 is phased out, that will make Nexenta very divergent in terms of
> packaging.
To be correct, if Indiana introduces a different packaging system, it is
Indiana that introduces divergence.
> > Its not that, it is just that not all people understand what ON fork
> > really means. Just answer for yourself - is Indian a fork of OpenSolaris
> > (i.e ON) ? Sound strange.. It is just yet another *derivative*
>
> Since Indiana seeks to change Solaris itself; no. Especially since Sun
> is the one primarily developing Indiana.
Indiana is a fork from Solaris.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
