On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 07:02:50PM -0800, Bart Smaalders wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > > 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. > > Shouldn't redistributability be a tag in the package?
Sure. > How does the package owner determine the CD vs REPO vs DVD question? The same way they know now whether to ask to be in the miniroot or on the CCD or in the WOS, or on CD1, etc. Mostly, people don't care, and there's a default answer. With a redistributable tag, that bit at least is done automatically. But the WITs (D-Teams?) are going to have to have at least a little bit of help from the engineering teams to decide what needs to be in the most core bits. > For well known places like ON, new packages that _have_ to be there in > order to boot should be part of a well-known group package that the > distro dudes use.... Not all core packages come from ON, which means that some cross-consolidation teams are going to have to decide the boundaries of those incorporations. They're going to need to know which packages are required for boot, and I don't think we can rely on the package developers to always make that distinction correctly. (Ruby? Of course that needs to be on the live CD -- I'll tag it with livecd=true!) Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
