[indiana-discuss] scope (was Re: ZFS to the max)

[Alberto Ruiz]

2007/7/2, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro at sun.com>:
>
> Martin Man wrote, On 02/07/07 17:00:
> > Shawn Walker wrote:
> >> On 02/07/07, Daniel Griffith <mechadaniel at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Seperating package names and package file names is a ghastly solution
> >>> to the problem, if I want to manually download a package called
> >>> nvidia-drivers, I should be downloading a file called
> >>> nvidia-drivers.***, not NVDAgraphics.***.
> >>
> >> Why does that matter?
> >
> > because if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck it must be a
> > duck... no need to call it chair if, in fact, it's a ... duck
>
>    As I pointed previously, if we do it right, users wouldn't have to
>    deal with package names.
>
>    Anyway, think of it like a language (English vs whatever): In Linux
>    you use something like 'linux-restricted-modules-2.6.20-16-generic'
>    plus 'nvidia-glx', while in Solaris you use 'NVDAgraphics'.
>
>    In fact, do you really think these modern Solaris packages names are
>    so terrible that we need to break the compatibility? :-?
>
>      SUNWgnome-keyring-manager
>      SUNWgnome-character-map
>      SUNWgnome-system-monitor
>      SUNWperl-authen-pam
>      SUNWperl-xml-parser
>      SUNWevolution-webcal
>      SUNWevolution-exchange


Those ones are right, indeed. However, what happens with ones that still
terrible? There are hundred of them. Are we going to keep them wrong? I
thought that this was supposed to fix all those kind of things. If we are
not going to fix those kind of things, then, I can't see any point on
Indiana.

Once all this was started, the promoters of the ideas talked about fixing
things that haven't been fixed before due to backwards compatibility. Now,
everyone argues that anything should be fixed due to backwards
compatibility.

However, at this point, what really worries me, is that anyone with
authority enough is not closing the no ending threads. Or at least, stating
a procedure to achieve a common conclusion that everyone of us should
accept.


  Many of us have learned using Linux. I'm indeed one of those, but I
>   do understand that we don't need to copy it in every single aspect.
>   Nexenta is there for the people who want 'Linux with a OpenSolaris
>   kernel', but I think we want something more than that for Indiana.


I haven't sugested copying. But Indiana is an opportunity to fix things, and
in my opinion, the current package names used, it's something that should be
fixed for the sake of usability.


-- 
Un saludo,
Alberto Ruiz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/attachments/20070702/0d5fc4d9/attachment-0001.html