--- On Wed, 7/21/10, Joerg Schilling <[email protected]>
wrote:
> - There is no Xorg package from
> Blastwave, is there such a beast
> from other sources besides Indiana?
Hmm...., that is incorrect. BW "had" successful Xorg packaging since Xorg 6.4
(I thank Sun's X team for helping me with that). Another BW engineer (i.e.
J.B.) recently was working on packaging Xorg 7.5 for BW. I dropped Xorg 7.2
packaging at BW when Solaris 10 adopted it (somewhat).
>
> - There is no set of GNOME packages from
> Blastwave that include gdm
> and correctly support
> internationalization.
> Does this exist from other sources
> besides Indiana?
>
This is incorrect. I worked outside of Sun on GNOME to replace CDE - and used
GDM. As for G18n/i18n, I also tried to spearhead this with Sun on the Unicode
4.x frontier. You are not the only scientist in town. (smile)
> > Like it or not but SVr4 is a dead-end now. Instead of
> trying to get it
> > fixed you would much better server the community by
> helping IPS guys.
>
> Unless proven, I would asume that IPS is dead too.
> Is there a single active distro that uses IPS?
>
> There are however thousands of packages from many sources
> in SVr4 package
> format.
>
> BTW: this is definitely the wrong time to discuss
> packaging. Creating a
> community distro first that can live without Closed Source
> seems to be much
> more important.
>
> Jörg
Okay... let me start with a few things but I won't get deep into it. I can
agree about both IPS and SVR4 packaging. Most Solaris ISVs are still using
SVR4. IPS was a 'quick fix' to help resolve Sun's internal package management
issues and provide a network repository. Early community adoption never took
off with IPS (i.e. it was too soon and riddled with issues). But, some
developer-types implemented IPS solutions and it did work once the code
improved and the search interfaces to pkg*** network repositories improved as
well. IPS is just an option for ISVs and distro providers to use and if distro
providers don't want to use it - then they don't have to use it. As mentioned,
IPS was the conceptual start of the idealogy of what was needed to fix problems
mentioned beforehand (aka Sun's build systems, legacy Live upgrades, package
pro, scripting capabilities, and Sun's Web packaging interface). Someone at Sun
trying to hit the moon with a baseball bat...
SVR4 packaging alone was not the only problem and was just a PART of the larger
problem - not the "end all be all" of the larger issues at hand. Talking about
SVR4 packaging versus IPS is like talking about the atom of a molecule versus
the molecule itself. Shamefully, SVR4 packaging just got tossed in the pile
with the rest of the 'items'.
It would be UNWISE for a OpenSolaris distro provider not to support IPS as "an
option" if it is officially adopted by Oracle for Solaris Next. Also, a few
other Solaris contributers are starting to use it. Larger ISV adoption of IPS
will tell the tale for us.
By the way, a few of us looked at Conary as well as many other solutions.
Well, what programming language is Conary written in?!?
And we all thought Pluto was just a lil' old planet....
~ Ken Mays
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
