[oi-dev] OpenIndiana and illumos, part 2

[Albert Lee]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Albert Lee <trisk at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> OK, Garrett's attempt forced people to respond really defensively...
> so let's try again.
>
> For the record, here are goals (and anti-goals) of illumos that are
> relevant to OpenIndiana:
>
> - The ability to run software built for Solaris 10 using interfaces
> that weren't already subject to change between releases (obsolete
> interfaces need not apply)
> - The ability to run software built for Solaris 11 on a best-effort
> basis, since it is both an unknown and a moving target
> - No consideration for the converse ability to run software built for
> illumos on Solaris 11 (that is not to say it won't happen to work, but
> it won't be a concern for development)
> - Freedom to introduce new features in a way that is incompatible with
> Solaris 11
> - Freedom to remove features with known and limited affect (obviously
> not subverting compatibility, but compromises are inevitable)
>
> This is the big picture, and the goals are near what OpenIndiana can
> realistically hope to achieve. Sometimes there seems to be the
> appearance of a false dichotomy. What illumos (not just Garrett) needs
> is not all that complicated, and it's mostly for the OpenIndiana
> developers to work closely with the illumos developers on changes that
> have an impact outside of ON, so illumos can have a proper
> self-hosting platform. There has been unfortunately little high-level
> communication between developers of illumos and OpenIndiana and not
> enough overlap in membership, and that needs to change.
>
> In any case, users choosing to use what was explicitly stated to be
> the first development release of OpenIndiana in production certainly
> made a mistake (although possibly the real issue for many was choosing
> to deploy the OpenSolaris development build in the first place), and
> we *should* not feel responsible for the effects of that decision.
> However, as a conscientious person I believe that we *can* move
> forward with illumos without completely abandoning them.
>
> oi_148 is nearly done, and I apologise for the delay, I have approval
> to finish performing the RE tasks today with our current bits and get
> it out the door. I believe our originally stated plan of providing an
> illumos build for this release in an additional repository is feasible
> (and I've been doing regular builds) and provides the illumos
> developers what they need, and Garrett has agreed that it is
> reasonable.
>
> So let's make sure we're all on the same page. Given illumos'
> self-imposed constraints, what are the primary concerns of
> OpenIndiana?
>
> -Albert
>

I should also mention that the real targets for oi_148 aren't the
specific versions of the consolidations we're delivering but
addressing specific concerns with the first release and making sure we
have the processes in place for future builds.

-Albert