[csw-maintainers] OpenCSW Prefix

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Gary,

Am 01.11.2008 um 13:17 schrieb Gary Law:
>> > * **Release Process**.
>>
>> You might want to take a look at Hudson, which is a nice  
>> Continuous Integration server that I've used for automated builds  
>> in the past.
>
> Like this :-)
>   http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/hudson/
>
> Oh fantastic. If you dive deep enough through the links eventually  
> absolute links to:
> http://hudson:8070
> start appearing, which don't work.

Oops. Trygve, any clues how to fix this?

> Still, this is completely the right way to go IMHO. I'll try and  
> get my packages in there.

This will be done automatically once we have single package
checkout in GAR. Auto-build on commit :-)

>
>>  (*) I've got one more, and this is probably going to be a little  
>> controversial... we should move out of /opt/csw and into /opt/ 
>> opencsw. Blastwave Inc is still distributing into /opt/csw and the  
>> scope for end user confusion and incompatible software releases is  
>> huge. Although this sounds like a lot of work, if everything is in  
>> GAR, and everything needs to be rebuilt for Sol 9 in the next six  
>> months, it's really not a lot of extra work. I've got big  
>> reservations about maintaining stuff through opencsw that installs  
>> into /opt/csw.
>
> Difficult. *If* we change the prefix, then there must be a
> converter for installation to go from csw/ to opencsw/, but
> personally I would like to postpone that until we see how
> each project performs. Discussion welcome.
>
>
> Like changing to GAR only, it would be impossible overnight. But  
> set a target date six months out, and I think it's realistic to get  
> everything rebuilt, out of version controlled repo, off the new  
> minimum standard (Solaris 9). We might loose a few packages or  
> maintainers along the way, but end up in a much better place for  
> running and maintaining the project long term.

That would imply to also change the package prefix CSW to something  
else.
I completely agree that it is a Bad Thing(TM) to have two projects work
on the same prefix. However, the "inheritor" of CSW (Phil, after Alan
DuBoff) is at OpenCSW and most of the maintainers too. I don't know how
they feel about changing the prefix. Personally, I think OpenCSW has the
moral right to stick to /opt/csw, but that is just my opinion and I  
would
accept a majority decision on this of course.

Fellow maintainers, what do you think?

> Also, what's the alternative? Having two projects targeting the  
> same install path? That is not sustainable going forward and the  
> project's credibility will suffer.

The question is: will the maintainers here will accept leaving the
prefix to Blastwave and start with a new one.

Apart from that it would be cool to allow customized package trees
with different suffixes (e. g. like optimized trees for T1/T2).
However, that would impose quite an extra amount for package
maintainers (not for all, but there are nasty ones).


Best regards

   -- Dago
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20081101/028f00ee/attachment.html>