[indiana-discuss] Plans for release

[Glynn Foster]

Hey,

Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Hi guys, in some thread I read that Indiana is experiment, so, as I
>> understand, even when you release stable version, it will not stable. For my
>> opinion it's not true way.
> 
>  I think that Ian Murdock has already said that it is not an experiment and
> that it will be used as the next rendidtion of the SXDE. It is a Sun
> product and it has the OpenSolaris TradeMark on it which Sun Microsystems
> Inc owns and controls.

That's not quite correct. SXDE went away because we wanted to focus on a single 
binary distribution (though SXCE continues due to the necessity for building 
self-hosting OpenSolaris kernel).

>  So think of it as a future looking Solaris OS type product.
> 
>> Also, why you name packages with prefix SUNW? Most peoples look for gcc, for
>> example, but can't find it. May be more user-frendly name packages as most
>> of us expect?
> 
>  Because SUNW was the old Sun Microsystems Stock symbol I guess. Also
> because every package in the Sun Solaris product inventory that goes into
> Solaris has a name of SUNWfoo for some foo. This means that the dependency
> tree for SUNWfoo may include SUNWbar which may also have a dependency on
> SUNWwoo. Therefore no one wanted to reinvent the where and thus all the
> packages in a Project Indiana or OpenSolaris Binary product release will
> have packages named SUNWfoo and SUNWbar and SUNWwoo.  That is my guess.

Package refactoring and renaming will happen at some stage in the future - I 
don't know the exact plans for that, but you're right, it doesn't make too much 
sense to have the SUNW prefix anymore. That information will be maintained 
within the package metadata.

> Over the last few days I worked around the clock with Angelo Rajadurai to
> get as much software into an IPS style repo for people to use. The process
> is flawed and it tends to break easily. We don't know why. We can install
> packages from the repo to an Indiana user.  Sometimes. There is no facility
> for post install or pre-install scripts and we may have to just create our
> own solution to address that.

Looking forward to this :)


Glynn