[oi-dev] oi_151a9 roadmap & planning

[Igor Kozhukhov]

Hi All,

it is thread about OI , but let me provide additional info.

We are talking about illumos, but I think, we have to understand, that illumos based on sponsors who are using it for business and depend on it.

Take a look list of advocates: all advocates from companies who are using illumos for business and invest to devs/env.

we try to talk about some integrations/changes in illumos for other projects, but we have no advocates who can integrate our changes if they are not interest for companies with business based on illumos.

also - as you can see - all companies/distrs are not using illumos as is - all have forks with additional changes.

but - all depend on maintenance of additional changes and wants minimize it by integrate changes to illumos.

for my opinion: packaging it is not critical area for illumos and can be using outside based on current IPS manifests.
yes - will be better to have integrated DEB packages generation (just for example), but who will maintain it ?
yes - i can maintain it, but who will integrate it ? update tools and some other changes ?

As i said - we have no additional advocates/integrators who can do it with out of scope of business needs.

good example: Xen community and work with tree.
source tree has parts with persons who can review it and integrate.
Example: if you want commit your changes to 'tools' - you have to add persons in MAINTAINERS list who are familiar with tools and responsible for approval/integration.

We have no it with illumos.
we have list of advocates.
if changes are no interest for companies with illumos business - changes will not integrate to illumos tree and we can only maintain it on personal forks.

but with good result: we can update personal tree by illumos changes for personal distr.

--
Best regards,
Igor Kozhukhov


On Feb 19, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Andy Stormont <andyjstormont at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The IPS metadeta isn?t really that useful to non-IPS distributions but I?m not sure removing it is a good idea.  Instead I?d rather see the SVR4 data reintegrated if it?s going to see some use and somebody cares enough to maintain it.
> 
> This is what I did in late 2010 and early 2011.
> 
> Svr4 package meta data is present and maintained on SchilliX-ON. 
> Feel free to take it.
> 
> Even though I have no use for the IPS meta data, I did maintain it so far...
> 
> Jörg
> 
> -- 
> EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
>       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
>       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> 
> _______________________________________________
> oi-dev mailing list
> oi-dev at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev