On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Bochnig wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:40, Martin Bochnig wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Calum Benson >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On 19 Oct 2008, at 13:11, Duncan Paterson wrote: >> >> >> >>> What are the chances that this will one day rival apt for >> selection, >> >>> frequency of updates and speed. >> >> >> >> It will happen a lot quicker once we have repositories in place to >> >> which everyone can contribute packages. I get the feeling >> that'll be >> >> a pretty high priority once 2008.11 is out the door, and with a bit >> >> of >> >> luck it'll be in full swing in time for the 2009.04 release. >> >> > Not necessary, because by then users can do the same thing in a >> > better way >> > (more sophisticated, but complexity encapsulated from users) via the >> > then >> > available conary-based version of Indiana. >> >> Which is fine, but just because you consider it unnecessary doesn't >> mean it isn't going to happen :) >> >> Cheeri, >> Calum. >> >> -- >> CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> GNOME Desktop Team >> http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 977 >> >> >> >> >> Oh, ditto. >> >> But think twice: If Sun likes to pay tons of money for re-inventing the >> wheel only to come into a position, where they can say "we made this, it is >> our little kindergarden invention", rather than having licensed rPath's >> conary in the first place (which is in busy development since 2004), then go >> ahead and waste more TIME, more MANPOWER, more MONEY and more other >> RESOURCES. >> I doubt your primary interest is to HELP CUSTOMERS increase their >> PRODUCTIVITY. >> >> > Sigh. Martin, this is becoming tedious. I think all of us involved with > packaging acknowledge that Conary has a fine product, but it didn't meet the > requirements that we had identified for Sun's businesses. We wish you well > in packaging up your distro. > > Dave > p.s. We are only aware of requirements which IPS doesn't *yet* meet: e.g compiling packages from source, supporting the construction of virtual appliances based on conary's dependencies logic, being based on SVN and hence able to detect it in a few seconds, if one of a single byte's bits changes somewhere on the disk in a file (ascii or binary) that is under conary's control. IPS is getting more and more similar to conary, both have C-backends, both can use sqlite3 (or other db's) as database backends, both are in python2.4. It is obvious that Sun tries to clone conary, without ever stealing a single line of actual code. But the concept and ideas are getting more similar. When taking this into account it sounds a bit ridiculous, when "they" argue conary doesn't meet their (your) requirements. %martin
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
