John Plocher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Joerg Schilling > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bart Smaalders <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ..... > > 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...
John, I am not against good ideas, I am against trhowing away good ideas from the past. Software needs to be maintained and good ideas belong into existing software in order to make deady for the future. SMF was a good idea in 2004 and it did speed up things a lot. Today, Solaris with SMF is slow compared to Linux. Do we need to throw away SMF? I believe no, we rather need to work on the existing software to make it readiy for the future. IPS includes one really new good idea: clever checksumming. Is there really no way to get this idea into Svr4 packaging? I am a scientiest and it is easy to convince me with good arguments. > 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*? As I mentioned in a previous mail, IPS is currently not yet to be discussed. I am currently working on Build 130 and I plan to stay with build 130 for Schillix until I was able to replace as many closed software packages as possible. After that, it is time do discuss packaging. If then, there are good arguments for IPS, I may get convinved for IPS. If not, I'll start enhancing the old packaging system with the needed features. If we just add the feature to resolve dependencies in pkgadd, we added what currently is available in Blastwave's pkg-get. This worked well for many years. For now we still need a self hosting OpenSolaris distro base that was made without closed source. We are in year 5 of OpenSolaris and it is a shame that the most important political issues have not yet been resolved. Let us work on a community distro and let us think on how we self organize in case that Oracle does not respond to the questions of the OGB before August 23th. 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/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
