Martin Bochnig wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Dave Miner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Martin Bochnig wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Calum Benson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto:[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]> > <mailto:[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]> > <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 > > > > > > Hi Dave, ok ok. > But _which_ requirements didn't it meet? > Did anybody ever tell me (precisely) ? > I'm still waiting for a detailed answer other than "for (internal > reasons) that we had identified for Sun's businesses". > Thoughts? >
I believe that Stephen answered this at one point in as much detail as he cared to get into, but perhaps he'll decide to follow up. Dave _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
