On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe that Moinak's thoughts are : if the search operation is >> pushed to the client (like, say, with rpm/apt), then the server would >> become http, file, ftp, etc without needing a custom server behind >> those services. > > The client already has search capability locally, so that seems a moot > point. > > However, local search doesn't solve the problem of trying to search for > things you don't even have. It also doesn't scale very well when you want > to search a specific repository's contents. > Thanks for the info, Shawn. It does seem that the server would need to search an index instead of the client, though. apt's mechanism of pulling in catalogs and then searching them locally seems scalable enough to not put the load of having an additional service on the server. Sorry, I'm mentioning other existing packaging technologies because that is what I know and understand (and these are what my peers know and understand too). Also, see below. >> Yes, one may say that convincing mirror hosts to run custom servers >> would be Belenix's headache, but given that we've always given to and >> taken from the various opensolaris technologies, we see it to >> everyone's advantage if we had a discussion first before going >> elsewhere :) > > As we have already responded, this will eventually be possible. We fully > intend mirrors to be able to serve package content. We have several bugs > open to change our transport methodology to accommodate this. > If there will someday be a depot-free future, I think that the client will have to pull in the catalog and conduct the search. I myself see no other alternative, but I'll wait and watch. >> >> If well discussed in an open and amicable manner, upstream >> contributions could actually happen in a nice manner. Sun has a good >> track record on several projects on this front, after all. > > ...and that process would likely move very slowly. OpenSolaris has unique > platform requirements and needs that would require changes that upstream > projects would be unlikely to accept. Examples of this that come to mind > are: our zfs integration, zones support, license entitlement, etc. > I believe the apt port to OpenSolaris addresses almost all of those above. The license entitlement is something that I'm not qualified to comment on, though. > As I understand it, most of this has already been discussed over the past > year or so. The short answer is that existing packaging systems don't meet > our needs, and most of the existing wheels would be unrecognisable by the > time they were altered to fit them. > Ack. >> As with everything else in Belenix, we're here to share these concerns >> and thoughts with the opensolaris community. > > I certainly appreciate the feedback, and I'm sure others do as well. Thanks. > However, keep in mind that our goal is not to merely replicate existing > systems or methodology. From my perspective, our intended goal is to bring > an innovative, unique solution that is optimally tailored to the needs of > OpenSolaris. > > I do not believe we could achieve that by simply "bolting on" pieces to an > existing packaging system. I have not see the sources of Nexenta's apt, so I cannot myself comment on whether this was a bolt on. > > Cheers, > -- > Shawn Walker > -- Sriram _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
