Bart Smaalders wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> Stephen Hahn wrote:
>>> MEDIA LOCATION:
>>
>> Based on the discussion in the meeting last week this becomes
>> something like:
>>
>> [ ] Redistributable Live CD
>> [ ] Redistributable Packages DVD
>> [ ] Redistributable Repository (pkg.opensolaris.org)
>> [ ] Non-Redistributable Repository (pkg.sun.com)
>>
>> where a reason is needed for anything other than the pkg.os.o repo.
>
> But much of this data is in the wrong place.
>
> Shouldn't redistributability be a tag in the package?
I didn't realize you were putting it there - that's certainly more useful.
(In a way, it's already there in the license file, that's just not machine
parsable into a simple "redistributable" boolean.)
> How does the package owner determine the CD vs REPO vs DVD question?
>
> Those decisions belong to the groups building those products (distro
> dudes)....
Traditionally this form is how the package owners communicate to the distro
builders what packages are useful in each place, and since we're all working
together on the same distro, the package owners suggest, the distro builders
approve or deny. In a world where package owners provide bits that many
distro builders may build from, I suppose this comes down to providing a
useful description so that the distro builder can decide if an image editor
is functionality they want on their live cd or only in their repo depending
on what the goal is for their live cd.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
