[csw-maintainers] OpenCSW Prefix

[Trygve Laugstøl]

Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
> 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?

Odd. Where did you find that link?

>> 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).

I don't care what we do as all the packages should be rebuilt for
Solaris 9+ anyway, but the only thing that matters is what our consumers
need.

If we are to move we really need to document how to transition from the
Original Blastwave packages to the new OpenCSW packages. Perhaps it is
an alternative to use /opt/opencsw for the binary root and use
/etc/opt/csw for configuration files?

--
Trygve