> Joerg (et.al.) > > This all sounds like crying over spilt milk, as they say. Your > arguments seem to be of the form "THEY didn't need to move away from > SVr4 packages; instead THEY could have..." rather than "here's what > SVr4 packages do that IPS doesn't". That is, your gripe seems to be > that you weren't consulted, that your ideas weren't incorporated, the > project went in directions you wouldn't have gone, and that you do not > know what problems it is solving - none of which are terribly > convincing arguments in an open source community... > > The fact of the matter is that nobody *DID* step up and > fix/redo/replace/improve the SVr4 packaging stuff. Instead, a group > of somebodies went off and built a better-for-them mousetrap to > replace SVr4 packaging. While even I have quibbles about *HOW* it was > done, the fact remains that *WHAT* they did is very good; it is a > clear and (to me) overwhelmingly better system that SVr4 packaging was > - or ever could be, given SVr4 packaging's inherent flaws and > malformed, in-the-field package metadata. In *theory*, with effort > that never materialized, SVr4 packaging coulda, woulda, shoulda... It > didn't. > > But. as I said before, none of this really matters if we don't even > have a community distro that can be built and installed! If you can't > even boot the OS, can't even get to a prompt, then who the hell cares > about what kind of packaging system is there *THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN > USE*? > > Let's get the basics working first, and be as open as we can towards others. > > -John
+1. Couldn't agree more. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
