[indiana-discuss] [Fwd: [desktop-discuss] SFE binary packages for OpenSolaris]

[Darren Kenny]

Hi Stephen,

I totally understand that you don't want this in the current set of
deliverables, but it's most certainly something we need to consider as a high
priority for the next phase.

I have logged an RFE at defect.opensolaris.org for the purpose of tracking this...

	http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=316

I think it makes sense to make further comments there.

Thanks,

Darren.

Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro at sun.com> [2007-12-13 18:16]:
>> Think of this as the "familiarity problem" that Indiana is trying to
>> address (the reason why IPS has been written in the first place), plus
>> a missing functionality that impacts developers (who are an important
>> target; aren't they?).
> 
>   To be clear, this is *not* the familiarity problem we were asked for.
>   The familiarity problem is for users of a Unix-like system, not the
>   developers of that system.  
> 
>   That said, I have always been willing to define and add the metadata
>   necessary for one or multiple build systems to operate in complement
>   with image packaging.  I am unwilling to take any other delivery
>   requirements regarding software builds for this phase of the project.
> 
>   Recommended paths forwards are:
>   
>   - to engage on pkg-discuss if you have suggestions for metadata,
> 
>   - assist Laca, Petr, and others with pkgbuild to image packaging
>     delivery, and/or
> 
>   - investigate use of fakeroot-like technology [1] to make pkgbuild come
>     into compliance with SFW build engine requirements [2], so that
>     SFW could use it as well.  (This would be a voluntary path to
>     ubiquity, rather than a dictated one--even though I could write a
>     much nastier build system than Alan C hypothesized...)
> 
>   Cheers
>   Stephen
> 
> [1] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/fakeroot/
> 
> [2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/sfwnv/Documents/Build_engine_policy/
>  
>