On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 19:20 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > > Gabriele Bulfon <gbul...@sonicle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That's great ;) and....what are the missing features compared to latest
> > >> OpenSolaris dev? (if any...)
> > >
> > > If you like to compare SchilliX with OpenSolaris, nothing is missing.
> > > If you compare SchilliX to Indiana, things look different.
> > >
> > > From the discussion of Licenses, it seems that Indiana is not made of
> > > redistributable code only.
> >
> > The distro named "OpenSolaris", originally created by the Indiana project,
> > contains only redistributable code in the install media & main IPS
> > repositories,
> > though some of that is closed source binaries released under licenses like
> > the OSBL.
>
> Does this mean, I could bundle the data from /usr/lib/locale/* with SchilliX?
Probably with the closed libc that you have as part of your 147 build.
However, these bits would *not* work with illumos.
>
> > All packages containing code which is not redistributable are isolated
> > to the /extra repository.
>
> Given the fact that
>
> pkg search cc
>
> does not show any /extra in the output, does this mean I could bundle the
> studio compiler with SchilliX?
No. pkg doesn't consider licensing considerations. You need to form
your own analysis by reading the licenses of the software you have
downloaded.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
