|
Replies:
75
-
Last Post:
Aug 4, 2005 4:15 PM
by: alanh
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
ZA
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:14 AM
|
|
First question is specificly to Sun's opensolaris distribution...
Will it continue to be in the format of downloadable iso's with the standard release cycle or variation thereof?
If yes, does this mean that a regular download of 4 ISO's are on the cards?
If no, are there any internal work being done to devise a package management system to keep your desktop up to date with the latest happenings? (rpm-like for example so that 100MB's of updates could get you to a new release as opposed to 4x600MB )
I've read reports on a "gentoo-ish portage ie sortage ?" being developed for Open Solaris. This would imply that I can keep my Open Solaris up to date with patches and new program/utility fixes via a management system (like my gentoo pc). This would probably be a "gentoo open solaris" distribution ... any news?
The iso download (for patches and application updates) are bandwith consuming and not friendly to countries where the DSL are not comparable with the US/EU.
I would love to hear opinions on package management for opensolaris, specificly the Sun release.
Cheers.
|
|
|
James Lick
jlick@drivel.com
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:33 AM
in response to: burgerw
|
|
Louwtjie Burger wrote:
>First question is specificly to Sun's opensolaris distribution...
>
>Will it continue to be in the format of downloadable iso's with the standard release cycle or variation thereof?
>
>
This is a bit confusing, but there is no ISO distribution of
OpenSolaris. You are probably thinking of the Solaris Express Community
Release which comes as four ISOs. That's not OpenSolaris. The only Sun
provided distribution of OpenSolaris comes only as source code (and a
bunch of binaries that are still closed source). You need to Solaris
Express Community Release to compile OpenSolaris. While they have some
things in common, Solaris Express still is not OpenSolaris. The only
OpenSolaris based binary distribution currently is Schillix. The main
FAQ sort of answers this (though it and the download page should
probably be a lot more explicit on this point):
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/general_faq/
--
James Lick -- ??? -- jlick at jameslick dot com -- http://jameslick.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
ZA
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:52 AM
in response to: James Lick
|
|
Sorry James, I'll try again :)
You need the Express ISO's to deploy the opensolaris source, yes.
My question is, looking down the line in 3-6 months (or 12), will there be any opensolaris distro's (directly from Sun)?
Will they continue with Express as the representative of the open work ...?
Will Sun consider any other form of distributing Express, apart from the regular iso's ?
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Milkowski
rmilkowski@task.gda.pl
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jul 8, 2005 2:55 AM
in response to: burgerw
|
|
Hello Louwtjie,
Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 11:52:03 AM, you wrote:
LB> Sorry James, I'll try again :)
LB> You need the Express ISO's to deploy the opensolaris source, yes.
LB> My question is, looking down the line in 3-6 months (or 12), will there be any opensolaris distro's (directly from Sun)?
LB> Will they continue with Express as the representative of the open work ...?
What's wrong with SX? It IS distribution based on Open Solaris wth
additional software. It's just that you don't have all sources to all
components of SX.
LB> Will Sun consider any other form of distributing Express, apart from the regular iso's ?
I hope Sun will provide DVD ISO...
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task dot gda dot pl
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Howard
scott@doc.net.au
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 5:32 AM
in response to: James Lick
|
|
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 05:33:46PM +0800, James Lick wrote:
> The only Sun
> provided distribution of OpenSolaris comes only as source code (and a
> bunch of binaries that are still closed source). You need to Solaris
Not so. There is a binary "distribution" in the form of BFU archives.
These archives are sufficient to install and boot a basic OpenSolaris
system without the need for any underlying OS (other than needing to
boot some version of Solaris to extract the BFU's).
Scott
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 7:35 AM
in response to: Scott Howard
|
|
Scott Howard <scott at doc dot net dot au> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 05:33:46PM +0800, James Lick wrote:
> > The only Sun
> > provided distribution of OpenSolaris comes only as source code (and a
> > bunch of binaries that are still closed source). You need to Solaris
>
> Not so. There is a binary "distribution" in the form of BFU archives.
> These archives are sufficient to install and boot a basic OpenSolaris
> system without the need for any underlying OS (other than needing to
> boot some version of Solaris to extract the BFU's).
This is not correct.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
41
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 6:58 AM
in response to: burgerw
|
|
Hi,
Others have already clarified most of this.
Any package management solution that an opensolaris distribution uses will
be up to that distro.
I've written a little on keeping a binary distribution up to date on
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/albertw?entry=updaing_software_in_the_open
as has Eric Boutilier
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/eric_boutilier/20050609#on_jun_6_on_comp
Louwtjie Burger wrote:
> I would love to hear opinions on package management for opensolaris,
> specificly the Sun release.
Well the 'Sun Release' part has been answered by others, but feel free to
add thoughts on package management for distros to Eric's or my blogs.
Cheers,
~Al
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:53 AM
in response to: burgerw
|
|
Regarding to package mangement, pleasealso see this thead.
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=804&tstart=0
You have choice of using Local (PMS) Package Management System
or Hyper PMS. LPMS candidate for opensolaris are Portage and pkg-get.
But if you want to avoid yourself to be locked in by a perticular OS(even opensoalris), you can go with Hyper PMS approach. Both LPMS and HPMS have pros and cons.
tj
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:58 AM
in response to: tjyang
|
|
Not directed at TJ yang, rather at those whom read this thread:
On 6/29/05, TJ Yang <tj_yang at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> Regarding to package mangement, pleasealso see this thead.
> http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=804&tstart=0
>
> You have choice of using Local (PMS) Package Management System
> or Hyper PMS. LPMS candidate for opensolaris are Portage and pkg-get.
Of course OpenPKG ( http://www.openpkg.org ) also serves as a viable
package management system.
> But if you want to avoid yourself to be locked in by a perticular OS(even opensoalris), you can go with Hyper PMS approach. Both LPMS and HPMS have pros and cons.
OpenPKG is also cross-platform and won't lock you into a particular OS.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 12:43 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Tending to be a bit of a reductionist, I can't help but throw out what
I think is the #1 foundational question here.
What's the best package architecture (database) standard for
OpenSolaris? The canonicial choices, listed alphabetically, are:
* deb
* pkgsrc (implemented by pkgsrc system)
* portage
* rpm (implemented by the openpkg system)
* solaris packaging (implemented by Sun, Blastwave, and Sunfreeware)
* tww (implemented by tww system)
Let me know if I've missed any; but before you do, note that this list
is intended to be limited to package architecture types (i.e. package
file-format/database architectures).
My 2 cents:
- A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
that no work's been done yet.
- A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet.
- A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compatibiltiy with
commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and tww... Thoughts?
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 1:12 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> - A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> that no work's been done yet.
>
> - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet.
>
> - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compatibiltiy with
> commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
>
> Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and tww... Thoughts?
As far as I can tell from reading the documentation, TWW is a high
level package management system that can't work on it's own, as it
relies on the underlying operating system to have a native packaging
system. Think of it as an abstract packging system layer above
whatever the native one is. So, it doesn't really work for a native
packaging system.
That leaves OpenPKG RPM, and pkgsrc. Most of the *nix folk will
probably lean more toward pkgsrc. But, as someone that's implemented
an entire software deployment system based on OpenPKG, I'm heavily
biased towards it. Especially since there is a rich set of portable
packages already available and Solaris is an officially supported
platform for the OpenPKG project.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:14 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Previously Shawn Walker wrote:
> As far as I can tell from reading the documentation, TWW is a high
> level package management system that can't work on it's own, as it
> relies on the underlying operating system to have a native packaging
> system. Think of it as an abstract packging system layer above whatever
> the native one is. So, it doesn't really work for a native packaging
> system...
> ...
Thanks Shawn. tww should be deleted because it's not a back-end package
database architecture. So the canonical list actually is this:
* deb
* pkgsrc (implemented by pkgsrc system)
* portage
* rpm (implemented by the openpkg system)
* solaris packaging (implemented by Sun, Blastwave, and Sunfreeware)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:27 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
> ...
> But, as someone that's implemented an entire software deployment system
> based on OpenPKG, I'm heavily biased towards it. Especially since there
> is a rich set of portable packages already available and Solaris is an
> officially supported platform for the OpenPKG project...
Just wanted to point out that you're talking about the merits of the
OpenPKG system and team, not necessarily their choice to use RPM as the
backend architecture.
So my instincts (such as they are) tell me that comparing the pros/cons
of the pkgsrc backend architecture with that of the rpm backend
architecture, would effectively result in a tie.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:43 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> > ...
> > But, as someone that's implemented an entire software deployment system
> > based on OpenPKG, I'm heavily biased towards it. Especially since there
> > is a rich set of portable packages already available and Solaris is an
> > officially supported platform for the OpenPKG project...
>
> Just wanted to point out that you're talking about the merits of the
> OpenPKG system and team, not necessarily their choice to use RPM as the
> backend architecture.
>
> So my instincts (such as they are) tell me that comparing the pros/cons
> of the pkgsrc backend architecture with that of the rpm backend
> architecture, would effectively result in a tie.
I wish I could agree, but I can't. I've worked with a lot of different
source based packaging systems, including Gentoo's, Grimoire (Sorcerer
Linux..can't remember exactly), FreeBSD ports and others. RPM is a
great system for providing easily rebuildable packages that generate
binary packages. Personally, I have yet to find a source package
system that supports easy rebuilding of source packages into a binary
one using the same naming conventions and package specification files
other than RPM. Every other system I've seen tends to seperate the two
to a certain extent and makes it a real pain to manage both. I'm not
saying that pkgsrc doesn't have that capability as I haven't worked
with it. But, RPM is pretty dang convenient from my developer, system
administrator and user perspective.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 8:35 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
> On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com>
> wrote:
> > My 2 cents:
> >
> > - A big strike against deb and portage (for
> Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> > that no work's been done yet.
> >
> > - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's
> not open-source yet.
> >
> > - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is
> compatibiltiy with
> > commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
> >
> > Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and
> tww... Thoughts?
>
> As far as I can tell from reading the documentation,
> TWW is a high
> level package management system that can't work on
> it's own, as it relies on the underlying operating system to have a
> native packaging system.
> Think of it as an abstract packging system layer above
> whatever the native one is. So, it doesn't really
> work for a native
> packaging system.
>
This is not a bug ;) It is a feature that let me pick TWW over openpkg.
> That leaves OpenPKG RPM, and pkgsrc. Most of the *nix
> folk will
> probably lean more toward pkgsrc. But, as someone
> that's implemented
> an entire software deployment system based on
> OpenPKG, I'm heavily
> biased towards it. Especially since there is a rich
> set of portable
> packages already available and Solaris is an
> officially supported
> platform for the OpenPKG project.
OpenPKG indeed is a good CPAM solution if there is no
need to maintain compatibiltiy with existing legacy packages
and local PMS.
tj
> --
> Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
> binarycrusader at gmail dot com -
> http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 6:08 AM
in response to: tjyang
|
|
On 6/29/05, TJ Yang <tj_yang at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> This is not a bug ;) It is a feature that let me pick TWW over openpkg.
Right, wasn't saying that it was, just pointing out it doesn't really
provide a native packaging solution, which means TWW right now isn't
as useful since the native Solaris packaging system is unavailable.
> OpenPKG indeed is a good CPAM solution if there is no
> need to maintain compatibiltiy with existing legacy packages
> and local PMS.
It could also work fairly well as a native packaging system
replacement if you didn't have one to start with...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
987
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 1:49 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 15:43, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> - A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> that no work's been done yet.
>
> - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet.
>
> - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compatibiltiy with
> commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
>
> Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and tww... Thoughts?
pkgsrc can be made to use solaris packaging via "gensolpkg" but it's not
well integrated with the build makefiles.
I owe the gensolpkg maintainer some patches to bring it up to speed with
the recent increase in package name lengths.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 3:44 PM
in response to: sommerfe
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 15:43, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > - A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> > that no work's been done yet.
> >
> > - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet.
> >
> > - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compatibiltiy with
> > commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
> >
> > Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and tww... Thoughts?
>
> pkgsrc can be made to use solaris packaging via "gensolpkg" but it's not
> well integrated with the build makefiles.
>
> I owe the gensolpkg maintainer some patches to bring it up to speed with
> the recent increase in package name lengths.
So in terms relative merits of backend architectures, because the
pkgsrc team doesn't (I presume) support the deb, rpm, or portage
formats, the existence of "gensolpkg" sounds like a point in favor of
the Solaris packaging architecture (SVR4).
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 1:57 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> - A big strike against deb and portage (for Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> that no work's been done yet.
>
> - A big strike against Solaris packaging is it's not open-source yet.
>
> - A big point in favor of Solaris packaging is compatibiltiy with
> commercial Solaris and Solaris Express.
>
> Of the other three others -- rpm, pkgsrc, and tww... Thoughts?
tww isn't really an option. It's a metapackage system that rides on top of
your native packaging, and not really a package system as such (more apt
than dpkg, in Debian terms)
Also, keep in mind the big difference between something like rpm and SysV
package format -- rpm manages not just the packaging, but also the
building. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it makes adopting it more
work since you have to base your build architecture around it.
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:34 PM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Chris Ricker wrote:
> ...
>
> Also, keep in mind the big difference between something like rpm and SysV
> package format -- rpm manages not just the packaging, but also the
> building...
Chris,
Sorry but could you elaborate a bit more -- especially in terms of
contrasting this aspect of rpm infrastructure with Solaris' (SysV)...
Thanks.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 3:28 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Also, keep in mind the big difference between something like rpm and SysV
> > package format -- rpm manages not just the packaging, but also the
> > building...
>
> Chris,
>
> Sorry but could you elaborate a bit more -- especially in terms of
> contrasting this aspect of rpm infrastructure with Solaris' (SysV)...
With Solaris, you build your wad of binaries (or whatever you're bundling)
to package any which way you can ;-). Once you've got a hopefully working
set of stuff, you go through the pkg creation process - which basically
consists of listing the files you've created and some of the metadata
about them (permissions, ownership, etc.) (prototype(4)), and then
archiving all that (pkgmk(1)). Essentially, the pkg creation is just a
glorified version of tarball creation.
With rpm (dpkg is very similar; the two are basically feature-complete in
comparison to each other, but rpm has the added bonus of being ported
already and used by some large Sun customers) the packaging process starts
with creation of a spec file. This contains the same sort of info as a
prototype file (files to archive and their metadata), but it also uses a
shell-script syntax to list the source archives and patches to use, and
then defines the build process that produces the stuff that's being
packaged from that source. You run an rpmbuild command against this spec
file, and it compiles the source using the build commands listed inside
the spec file. After the compile finishes, the rpmbuild produces a src.rpm
which contains the original source code, any patches which were applied to
it, and a copy of the spec file used for building it-- all anyone else
needs to reproduce your build and produce their own binary rpms. The
rpmbuild also produces a binary rpm which contains basically the same
stuff as a Solaris-style package -- the compiled binaries and their
permissions, plus any pre / post install / uninstall scripts.
If you cheat, you can get a SysV like packaging process using rpm (compile
your stuff outside of rpm, tar it up, use that tarball as your "source"
for the rpm, and for the compile section of the spec file just untar it).
If you're doing that, though, you might as well just do Solaris pkgs
instead. The real major feature (and also the real major drawback, from a
packager's perspective if you're trying to package something painfully
complex ;-) of rpm over SysV is that it provides the src.rpm which should
give you pristine source, any patches used by the packager, and
documentation of how it is to be compiled to give you the binary package.
Really using that would require reworking the whole build, bfu, etc.
process though....
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 3:38 PM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
On 6/29/05, Chris Ricker <kaboom at oobleck dot net> wrote:
> <really great explanation removed>
Wow! I couldn't have put it better than that. Nicely done!
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Laszlo Peter
Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 4:31 PM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
I feel like it's time to mention my baby: pkgbuild
(pkgbuild.sf.net), which is an rpmbuild replacement that
produces Solaris SVr4 packages. This is what we use for
building JDS/Solaris (all GNOME, Mozilla, Evolution, APOC).
We have rpm spec files [with a few enhancements], patches
and community tarballs and simply use
pkgbuild -ba file.spec
to build the binaries and create Solaris packages.
In fact the same spec files are used for building JDS
on Linux and Solaris.
The JDS sources you can download from the Sun download centre
(mentioned in another thread) are actually pkgbuild source
packages. You can rebuild them using
pkgbuild --rebuild /path/to/src-pkg
Laca
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 18:28, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Also, keep in mind the big difference between something like rpm and SysV
> > > package format -- rpm manages not just the packaging, but also the
> > > building...
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Sorry but could you elaborate a bit more -- especially in terms of
> > contrasting this aspect of rpm infrastructure with Solaris' (SysV)...
>
> With Solaris, you build your wad of binaries (or whatever you're bundling)
> to package any which way you can ;-). Once you've got a hopefully working
> set of stuff, you go through the pkg creation process - which basically
> consists of listing the files you've created and some of the metadata
> about them (permissions, ownership, etc.) (prototype(4)), and then
> archiving all that (pkgmk(1)). Essentially, the pkg creation is just a
> glorified version of tarball creation.
>
> With rpm (dpkg is very similar; the two are basically feature-complete in
> comparison to each other, but rpm has the added bonus of being ported
> already and used by some large Sun customers) the packaging process starts
> with creation of a spec file. This contains the same sort of info as a
> prototype file (files to archive and their metadata), but it also uses a
> shell-script syntax to list the source archives and patches to use, and
> then defines the build process that produces the stuff that's being
> packaged from that source. You run an rpmbuild command against this spec
> file, and it compiles the source using the build commands listed inside
> the spec file. After the compile finishes, the rpmbuild produces a src.rpm
> which contains the original source code, any patches which were applied to
> it, and a copy of the spec file used for building it-- all anyone else
> needs to reproduce your build and produce their own binary rpms. The
> rpmbuild also produces a binary rpm which contains basically the same
> stuff as a Solaris-style package -- the compiled binaries and their
> permissions, plus any pre / post install / uninstall scripts.
>
> If you cheat, you can get a SysV like packaging process using rpm (compile
> your stuff outside of rpm, tar it up, use that tarball as your "source"
> for the rpm, and for the compile section of the spec file just untar it).
> If you're doing that, though, you might as well just do Solaris pkgs
> instead. The real major feature (and also the real major drawback, from a
> packager's perspective if you're trying to package something painfully
> complex ;-) of rpm over SysV is that it provides the src.rpm which should
> give you pristine source, any patches used by the packager, and
> documentation of how it is to be compiled to give you the binary package.
>
> Really using that would require reworking the whole build, bfu, etc.
> process though....
>
> later,
> chris
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 5:09 PM
in response to: Laszlo Peter
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Laszlo Peter wrote:
> I feel like it's time to mention my baby: pkgbuild
> (pkgbuild.sf.net), which is an rpmbuild replacement that
> produces Solaris SVr4 packages. This is what we use for
> building JDS/Solaris (all GNOME, Mozilla, Evolution, APOC).
> We have rpm spec files [with a few enhancements], patches
> and community tarballs and simply use
> pkgbuild -ba file.spec
> to build the binaries and create Solaris packages.
> In fact the same spec files are used for building JDS
> on Linux and Solaris.
>
> The JDS sources you can download from the Sun download centre
> (mentioned in another thread) are actually pkgbuild source
> packages. You can rebuild them using
> pkgbuild --rebuild /path/to/src-pkg
>
> Laca
! This is all starting to get really interesting...
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:15 PM
in response to: Laszlo Peter
|
|
On 6/29/05, Laszlo Peter <Laszlo dot Peter at sun dot com> wrote:
> I feel like it's time to mention my baby: pkgbuild
Sweet! rpmbuild really has me spoiled as a dev, admin, and user. Nice
to see a Solaris equivalent. Once the packaging tools are opened up as
well I think this in combination with pkgsrc would make a great
system. In the meantime though, there are other options...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 4:59 PM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
Chris -- First, let me echo Shawn... +1 on your explanation.
So one more big question...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Chris Ricker wrote:
> ...
>
> With Solaris, you build your wad of binaries (or whatever you're bundling)
> to package any which way you can ;-). Once you've got a hopefully working
> set of stuff, you go through the pkg creation process - which basically
> consists of listing the files you've created and some of the metadata
> about them (permissions, ownership, etc.) (prototype(4)), and then
> archiving all that (pkgmk(1)). Essentially, the pkg creation is just a
> glorified version of tarball creation.
>
> With rpm (dpkg is very similar; the two are basically feature-complete in
> comparison to each other, but rpm has the added bonus of being ported
> already and used by some large Sun customers) the packaging process starts
> with creation of a spec file. This contains the same sort of info as a
> prototype file (files to archive and their metadata), but it also uses a
> shell-script syntax to list the source archives and patches to use, and
> then defines the build process that produces the stuff that's being
> packaged from that source. You run an rpmbuild command against this spec
> file, and it compiles the source using the build commands listed inside
> the spec file. After the compile finishes, the rpmbuild produces a src.rpm
> which contains the original source code, any patches which were applied to
> it, and a copy of the spec file used for building it-- all anyone else
> needs to reproduce your build and produce their own binary rpms. The
> rpmbuild also produces a binary rpm which contains basically the same
> stuff as a Solaris-style package -- the compiled binaries and their
> permissions, plus any pre / post install / uninstall scripts.
This suggest that the Solaris-specific build knowledge that every
OpenPKG package maintainer had to acquire in order to deliver Solaris
packages to the OpenPKG system has been captured and made available for
re-use in Solaris-specific src.rpms on their site... Is that true?
(I'm assuming that this falls into that notorious category called "If
it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is". But hey, unless
I'm dreaming, my beloved White Sox have reached 50+ wins before July,
so apparently anything is possible! :) )
Eric
>
> If you cheat, you can get a SysV like packaging process using rpm (compile
> your stuff outside of rpm, tar it up, use that tarball as your "source"
> for the rpm, and for the compile section of the spec file just untar it).
> If you're doing that, though, you might as well just do Solaris pkgs
> instead. The real major feature (and also the real major drawback, from a
> packager's perspective if you're trying to package something painfully
> complex ;-) of rpm over SysV is that it provides the src.rpm which should
> give you pristine source, any patches used by the packager, and
> documentation of how it is to be compiled to give you the binary package.
>
> Really using that would require reworking the whole build, bfu, etc.
> process though....
>
> later,
> chris
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:11 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> This suggest that the Solaris-specific build knowledge that every
> OpenPKG package maintainer had to acquire in order to deliver Solaris
> packages to the OpenPKG system has been captured and made available for
> re-use in Solaris-specific src.rpms on their site... Is that true?
> (I'm assuming that this falls into that notorious category called "If
> it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is". But hey, unless
> I'm dreaming, my beloved White Sox have reached 50+ wins before July,
> so apparently anything is possible! :) )
Oh, it's even better than that. The src.rpms that OpenPKG provides
will build using the OpenPKG system on any OS that OpenPKG supports.
That's right, they have one set of Source RPMs for FreeBSD
4.11/5.4/6.0, NetBSD 2.0, Sun Solaris 8/9/10, Debian GNU/Linux 3.1,
Fedora Core 3, RedHat Enterprise Linux 3, SuSE Linux 9.3, Gentoo Linux
1.6.12, and Mandriva Linux 10.2. Additionally, OpenPKG is known to
work on IBM AIX 5.1, MacOS X 10.3, HP HPUX 11.11. While the official
latest release only consists of 562 packages, there is a fairly good
base there to begin with for a basic operating system. Certainly a
good candidate for use by an OpenSolaris distribution. There are only
two things they do that I dislike, but I know why they do it for
portability across those platforms and they have said they will
address it in the future when suitable to do so:
1) They have their .spec files setup to use static linking by default
(for portability across common platforms)
2) They have their .spec files setup to disable NLS (Because it's
broken on many platforms or poorly implemented)
Other than that, I generally don't have a problem with their packages
from a pure usage viewpoint. Obviously, everyone has their personal
preferences. The main thing is what they provide is a rich base to
start from, and curing the above two things is fairly trivial in my
experience so far.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 8:25 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> > This suggest that the Solaris-specific build knowledge that every
> > OpenPKG package maintainer had to acquire in order to deliver Solaris
> > packages to the OpenPKG system has been captured and made available for
> > re-use in Solaris-specific src.rpms on their site... Is that true?
> > (I'm assuming that this falls into that notorious category called "If
> > it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is". But hey, unless
> > I'm dreaming, my beloved White Sox have reached 50+ wins before July,
> > so apparently anything is possible! :) )
>
> Oh, it's even better than that. The src.rpms that OpenPKG provides
> will build using the OpenPKG system on any OS that OpenPKG supports...
That's the central design goal of pkgsrc too, and it's great. I was
actually hoping there were separate src.rpms for each OS though,
because if it's like pkgsrc, the multi-platform design of the system
necessitates a lot of complexity under the hood.
Having said that though, it's great to hear that OpenPKG is effectively
a public respository of re-usable Solaris-specific build knowledge for
500+ open-source packages.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 6:06 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> That's the central design goal of pkgsrc too, and it's great. I was
> actually hoping there were separate src.rpms for each OS though,
> because if it's like pkgsrc, the multi-platform design of the system
> necessitates a lot of complexity under the hood.
I don't remember seeing anything OS specific in the .spec files, so
the complexity is likely in the build files of the sources instead.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 9:24 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:11:54PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> 1) They have their .spec files setup to use static linking by default
> (for portability across common platforms)
Or non-portability, as the case may be. Static linking no longer
works on Solaris. For that matter, what mainstream platform doesn't
support dynamic linking?
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 9:40 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On 6/30/05, Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> Or non-portability, as the case may be. Static linking no longer
> works on Solaris. For that matter, what mainstream platform doesn't
> support dynamic linking?
Uh...static linking does too work on Solaris 10 :P It may not work for
base OS libraries (libc, etc.), but I have statically linked things on
Solaris 10 right now.
The reason their .spec files deafult to static linking / static lib
building is because of the absolute disaprity between various Linux
distributions I would guess. Here's what they say about it, and
perhaps a clarification that will leave you feeling a little better ;}
"[Q] Why is everything in OpenPKG statically linked? On modern Unix
platforms, the philosophy is to dynamically link everything.
[A]
A clarification: in OpenPKG executables are dynamically linked against
operating system (external) libraries, of course. What you are talking
about is the linking against the OpenPKG provided (internal)
libraries. These are currently build as static libraries (.a) instead
of shared libraries (.so) for various reasons.
We use static linking for them mainly to avoid cross-platform trouble.
Because with shared libraries you have to fiddle around with
LD_LIBRARY_PATH (and/or ldconfig if existing) and especially can run
into trouble for libraries which the OS vendor also provides (examples
are libdb, libz, etc). In using only static linking inside OpenPKG we
are a little bit less flexible and our object code grows in size, but
OTOH we already avoid lots of trouble in advance.
Nevertheless we certainly will try to change this after some
settlement of OpenPKG. At least it is on our wishlist for forthcoming
OpenPKG releases. So it certainly can be changed, but we have to
evaluate first and make sure we do not open a can of worms related to
the cross-platform aspect."
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 1:19 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:40:10AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Because with shared libraries you have to fiddle around with
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH (and/or ldconfig if existing) and especially can run
> into trouble for libraries which the OS vendor also provides (examples
> are libdb, libz, etc). In using only static linking inside OpenPKG we
> are a little bit less flexible and our object code grows in size, but
> OTOH we already avoid lots of trouble in advance.
So why not use -R/-rpath/LD_RUN_PATH instead? The blastwave packages
are built this way and while it's unfortunate that they drag in their
own versions of libraries installed with the system, at least it works
correctly.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 2:24 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On 6/30/05, Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> So why not use -R/-rpath/LD_RUN_PATH instead? The blastwave packages
> are built this way and while it's unfortunate that they drag in their
> own versions of libraries installed with the system, at least it works
> correctly.
I'm guessing because those may not have existed on all the platforms
they support when they started? You'd have to ask their project lead
:) I was just pasting from their FAQ.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,458
From:
NL
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 10:28 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
>On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:11:54PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
>
>> 1) They have their .spec files setup to use static linking by default
>> (for portability across common platforms)
>
>Or non-portability, as the case may be. Static linking no longer
>works on Solaris. For that matter, what mainstream platform doesn't
>support dynamic linking?
Static linking works but not against the standard libraries.
Casper
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:06 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 02:43:27PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Tending to be a bit of a reductionist, I can't help but throw out what
> I think is the #1 foundational question here.
>
> What's the best package architecture (database) standard for
> OpenSolaris? The canonicial choices, listed alphabetically, are:
Are you talking about how binaries built from ON and other Solaris
consolidations are delivered, or about a hypothetical community-led
third-party application repository like portage, pkgsrc, and blastwave
provide today? Certainly unification in those latter areas would be
very helpful for users of OpenSolaris distributions.
The packaging structure for Solaris isn't going to change, though it
might be possible to add support for one or more additional packaging
methods that other distributions could use. That seems like a tough
sell, though - properly maintaining one set of packaging data is
enough work already, and nothing stops a distribution from discarding
usr/src/pkgdefs in favour of its own solution.
Making the svr4 packaging tools available in source form is a high
priority; assuming it's possible - a likely proposition - is there any
reason that standard can't continue to be used for distribution of
binary packages and tracking of dependencies among them? Some of the
other formats you describe aren't packaging formats so much as build
infrastructure - and if that build infrastructure could be used to
produce svr4 packages, you would be able to take advantage of the
packages installed on the system in your dependency calculations.
Really, it seems like there are multiple questions here; to name a
few:
- How do distributions package the OpenSolaris components? How is
this affected by the fact that Solaris is constrained to continue
using the same package format?
- Could the disparate community-led third-party software provisioning
efforts be unified, and how?
- What kind of infrastructure would be used in building such
third-party software?
- What kind of binary package formats should be produced, if any?
- If new packages are added in existing consolidations, how should
they be named? Where is the registry that prevents conflicts?
- How do you prevent the situation in which multiple packages could
satisfy a dependency but they have different names? Conversely, how
would you prevent the existence of incompatible packages with the same
names?
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:37 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
These questions to me frame the entire set of problems for any
existing packaging system that tries to integrate with a native one or
when you have a 3rd party providing the packages instead of the
original project.
On 6/29/05, Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> - If new packages are added in existing consolidations, how should
> they be named? Where is the registry that prevents conflicts?
Having a central package registry where definitive names could be
defined that all packagers should use regardless of which system
they're packaging for would be a nice start to helping solve
dependency, package replacement, or package upgrade issues.
> - How do you prevent the situation in which multiple packages could
> satisfy a dependency but they have different names? Conversely, how
> would you prevent the existence of incompatible packages with the same
> names?
This seems to be an age old problem that no one has yet solved. After
having spent years working with different packaging systems and
reading various philosophies posted by others I don't think there is a
golden bullet solution to this problem. As long as humans are the ones
packaging software, each one of them will tend to do things
differently, because obviously their own way is better ;)
For example, some RPM based Distributions have progname,
progname-devel, and progname-debug for almost every program. Where the
first is the program, the second is development headers and devel
specific libraries or tools, and the third is debug information that
can be additionally installed when so desired. Yet other distributions
only have progname, and bundle development headers, debug info and
everything into one item.
Then of course comes the naming conventions as you mentioned, they
love to prefix all of their packages with special initials, and use a
different versioning scheme than others so that even when you're using
the same package format the system goes crazy trying to figure out
what to do when you attempt upgrades. Then of course some people will
never conform to a universal set of rules, they have their own
packages, their own directory structure, and to heck with complying
with any type of rules.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:17 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
> ...
> On 6/29/05, Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> > - If new packages are added in existing consolidations, how should
> > they be named? Where is the registry that prevents conflicts?
>
> Having a central package registry where definitive names could be
> defined that all packagers should use regardless of which system
> they're packaging for would be a nice start to helping solve
> dependency, package replacement, or package upgrade issues...
>
Hmm... still assimilating this along with what's been posted about
pkgbuild, spec files, and src.rpms, and thinking out loud...
So it seems to me that one feasible path would be to take a minimal
OpenSolaris-based OS (SchilliX) and integrate an rpm registry onto
it -- at least for now. Then when Solaris packaging (svr4) is
open-sourced, migrating to a svr4 registry (if compatibility with
regular Solaris was desired) would be easy using Laca's pkgbuild
software.
Similarly, a pkgsrc registry could be used, with gensolpkg being the
future migration tool.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:23 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> So it seems to me that one feasible path would be to take a minimal
> OpenSolaris-based OS (SchilliX) and integrate an rpm registry onto
> it -- at least for now. Then when Solaris packaging (svr4) is
> open-sourced, migrating to a svr4 registry (if compatibility with
> regular Solaris was desired) would be easy using Laca's pkgbuild
> software.
>
> Similarly, a pkgsrc registry could be used, with gensolpkg being the
> future migration tool.
To me, if the solaris svr4 pkg tools were open, and paired with
pkgsrc, and the pkgbuild tool mentioned here earlier, then that would
be a great system for an OpenSolaris distribution and make for great
compatability with Official Solaris releases. But, for now, yes what
you suggest sounds about right...
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 8:35 PM
in response to: swalker
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at sun dot com> wrote:
> > So it seems to me that one feasible path would be to take a minimal
> > OpenSolaris-based OS (SchilliX) and integrate an rpm registry onto
> > it -- at least for now. Then when Solaris packaging (svr4) is
> > open-sourced, migrating to a svr4 registry (if compatibility with
> > regular Solaris was desired) would be easy using Laca's pkgbuild
> > software.
> >
> > Similarly, a pkgsrc registry could be used, with gensolpkg being the
> > future migration tool.
>
> To me, if the solaris svr4 pkg tools were open, and paired with
> pkgsrc, and the pkgbuild tool mentioned here earlier...
I think Laca's pkgbuild tool takes rpm spec files as input, not
pkgsrc spec files...
> , then that would
> be a great system for an OpenSolaris distribution and make for great
> compatability with Official Solaris releases. But, for now, yes what
> you suggest sounds about right...
>
> --
> Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
> binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
41
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 6:09 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Hi folks,
I think the discussion, while very intersting, might be focussed a little
too low level at the merits of package systems.
A distro will need to decide what it wants to support and how to do it.
For example does your distro want to support Zones? If the answer is yes
then you will need to implement the SVR4 package structure since thats what
the zones creation and patching tools use. If you dont want to use SVR4
and have a differnt package database, then you will need to re-implement
the zones creation and update methodology for your chosen system. As
someone who did a lot of patch testing on zones systems in s10 I can assure
you that its not trivial to update zones. It's unfortunate that the patch
and package tools are not open source right now, but you can build packages
from the binaries as they stand if thats any consolation. Creating patches
is another matter.
Thats just one consideration. Even if you implement the ideal package
management system for builders and users you still may face a lot of work
getting the functionality you want throughout the OS.
The main things wrong with the SVR4 that I'm seeiing in this discussion is
a lack of features in the tools, rahter than a problem with the SVR4
package and patch architecture.
This would lead me to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to
extend the current Sun Solaris tools as needed; for ease of use, updating,
ease of package/patch creation. But can people wait the 9-12 months?
Cheers,
~Al
--
Albert White - Patch System Test - Sun Ireland
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 30, 2005 8:18 AM
in response to: albertw
|
|
> Hi folks,
>
> I think the discussion, while very intersting, might
> be focussed a little
> too low level at the merits of package systems.
Yea, lets talk about HPMS intead of pros/cons of PMS.
I would rather work with existing PMS instead of trying
to replace them.
|--------------------------------------------------------|
HPMS | TWW HPMS=sbutils,pbutils and pkgutils |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
PMS | RPM | | PKGADD | | MSI | | SD-UX |
--------- ------------- ----------- --------------
| Linux | | Solaris | | Windows | | HP-UX |
OS | | | | | | | |
---------- ------------- -------------- -------------
from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/CPAM_with_TWW/User_Guide
>
> A distro will need to decide what it wants to support
> and how to do it.
>
> For example does your distro want to support Zones?
> If the answer is yes
> then you will need to implement the SVR4 package
> structure since thats what
> the zones creation and patching tools use. If you
> ou dont want to use SVR4
> and have a differnt package database, then you will
> need to re-implement
> the zones creation and update methodology for your
> chosen system. As
> someone who did a lot of patch testing on zones
> systems in s10 I can assure
> you that its not trivial to update zones. It's
> unfortunate that the patch
> and package tools are not open source right now, but
> you can build packages
> from the binaries as they stand if thats any
> consolation. Creating patches
> is another matter.
>
> Thats just one consideration. Even if you implement
> the ideal package
> management system for builders and users you still
> may face a lot of work
> getting the functionality you want throughout the OS.
>
> The main things wrong with the SVR4 that I'm seeiing
> in this discussion is
> a lack of features in the tools, rahter than a
> problem with the SVR4
> package and patch architecture.
pkgadd (SVR4 PMS) on soalris does has problem. no auto installation
of depended other packages is really a pain. no application depot infrasture
is another one. But this not its fault. these new feature were not in its design spec. it need a technology update/improvement.
>
> This would lead me to the conclusion that the best
> thing to do would be to
> extend the current Sun Solaris tools as needed; for
> ease of use, updating,
> ease of package/patch creation. But can people wait
> the 9-12 months?
There are two approaches to get moden Package Management System on solaris.
1. After pkgadd is opensource and improve it from source code
level.
2. Write the modules to improve pkgadd externally without modfiy
the pkgadd source code.
This is already being done by TWW Inc. and released in GPL license.
So why spend the effort to modify the source code of pkgadd ?
tj
> Cheers,
> ~Al
>
> --
> Albert White - Patch System Test - Sun Ireland
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 10:15 AM
in response to: albertw
|
|
Albert White <Albert dot White at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> The main things wrong with the SVR4 that I'm seeiing in this discussion is
> a lack of features in the tools, rahter than a problem with the SVR4
> package and patch architecture.
>
> This would lead me to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to
> extend the current Sun Solaris tools as needed; for ease of use, updating,
> ease of package/patch creation. But can people wait the 9-12 months?
I totally agree!
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 10:49 AM
in response to: albertw
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Albert White wrote:
> The main things wrong with the SVR4 that I'm seeiing in this discussion is a
> lack of features in the tools, rahter than a problem with the SVR4 package and
> patch architecture.
>
> This would lead me to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to
> extend the current Sun Solaris tools as needed; for ease of use, updating,
> ease of package/patch creation. But can people wait the 9-12 months?
As an admin of both Linux and various Unixen, one thing I really like from
most distros on the Linux side is the consolidation of patch and package
management into just package management. It tends to simplify systems
management a good deal.... Sure, you trade extra bandwidth for it, but
bandwidth's a lot cheaper than skilled workers ;-)
To me, that and the source+build-commands archives (src.rpm files, or
whatever equivalent in whichever other Linux packager you choose) are the
two really nice design advantages that SysV packaging & patching doesn't
have. (not that source+build-commands archives are inherently impossible
when generating SysV packages -- far from it, as several projects which do
exactly that show -- but it's not the standard way for SysV...)
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 11:28 AM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
On 7/1/05, Chris Ricker <kaboom at oobleck dot net> wrote:
> As an admin of both Linux and various Unixen, one thing I really like from
> most distros on the Linux side is the consolidation of patch and package
> management into just package management. It tends to simplify systems
> management a good deal.... Sure, you trade extra bandwidth for it, but
> bandwidth's a lot cheaper than skilled workers ;-)
Of course, SuSE has solved this problem by having a RPM patch system,
so you don't even need to trade bandwidth!
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 3:05 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 02:43:27PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
> Are you talking about how binaries built from ON and other Solaris
> consolidations are delivered...
No.
> or about a hypothetical community-led
> third-party application repository like portage, pkgsrc, and blastwave
> provide today?
Sort of. I'm talking about what I see as the foundational question for
rapid adoption of community-led implementations (e.g. SchilliX).
So maybe this is a better way of framing things:
By talking about the relative pros/cons of the 5 canonical package
backend architectures -- deb, pkgsrc, portage, rpm, and solaris/SVR4 --
we can derive the answer to the following question: What's the best
binary packaging system for doing a first-of-its-kind (prototype if you
will) SchilliX-based distro?
-Eric
P.S. By the way, one of the main reasons I'm pushing this is purely
self-serving. The reason being, I'm eager to personally start working
on a SchilliX/OpenSolaris distro, but I want ensure that I do it in a
direction that has a promising future.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 6:03 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
>
> ...
> ...
> Making the svr4 packaging tools available in source form is a high
> priority; assuming it's possible - a likely proposition
Note that open-sourcing Solaris packaging is currently slated to happen
no earlier than 9-12 months from now.
> is there any reason that standard can't continue to be used for
> distribution of binary packages and tracking of dependencies
> among them? ...
+1. Solaris packaging (Sun's customized svr4) is the incumbent and is
very well qualified to handle registry and dependency tracking duties.
Furthermore, as you mentioned, it will certainly continue to be the
package infrastructure used by regular Solaris (and therefore Solaris
Express) indefinitely. So taking these facts into consideration is
indeed important (really really important, IMO).
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 9:15 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > ...
> > Making the svr4 packaging tools available in source form is a high
> > priority; assuming it's possible - a likely proposition
>
> Note that open-sourcing Solaris packaging is currently slated to happen
> no earlier than 9-12 months from now.
This does not sound nice. I thought this would happe sooner.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 8:58 AM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
Keith M Wesolowski <keith dot wesolowski at sun dot com> wrote:
> Are you talking about how binaries built from ON and other Solaris
> consolidations are delivered, or about a hypothetical community-led
> third-party application repository like portage, pkgsrc, and blastwave
> provide today? Certainly unification in those latter areas would be
> very helpful for users of OpenSolaris distributions.
Blastwave unfortunatly currently is a binary "only" distribution.
I would be happy if we could have the knowledge from Blastwave
archived inside a source package system. I would be happy if this could be
done with sps as sps is easy to adopt.
> The packaging structure for Solaris isn't going to change, though it
> might be possible to add support for one or more additional packaging
> methods that other distributions could use. That seems like a tough
> sell, though - properly maintaining one set of packaging data is
> enough work already, and nothing stops a distribution from discarding
> usr/src/pkgdefs in favour of its own solution.
In case you would e.g. write a hypothetical rpm implementation on top
of the AT&T/Sun package database, this could work. If you just contemporatily
use unrelated package managers, you will get into trouble with overlaps.
> Making the svr4 packaging tools available in source form is a high
> priority; assuming it's possible - a likely proposition - is there any
> reason that standard can't continue to be used for distribution of
> binary packages and tracking of dependencies among them? Some of the
> other formats you describe aren't packaging formats so much as build
> infrastructure - and if that build infrastructure could be used to
> produce svr4 packages, you would be able to take advantage of the
> packages installed on the system in your dependency calculations.
As it seems that zones depent on the package database, we would need
to have these tools or to modify zones administration.
> Really, it seems like there are multiple questions here; to name a
> few:
>
> - How do distributions package the OpenSolaris components? How is
> this affected by the fact that Solaris is constrained to continue
> using the same package format?
SchilliX compiles the sources with sps and (today) packages them
in tar archives.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
68
From:
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 9:52 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Blastwave unfortunatly currently is a binary "only" distribution.
> I would be happy if we could have the knowledge from Blastwave
> archived inside a source package system. I would be happy if this could be
> done with sps as sps is easy to adopt.
That has always been my biggest problem with Blastwave / sunfreeware.
Something like that, but oriented around providing both binaries and
reproducible (but customizable when needed) builds of those binaries would
be a Good Thing
> > The packaging structure for Solaris isn't going to change, though it
> > might be possible to add support for one or more additional packaging
> > methods that other distributions could use. That seems like a tough
> > sell, though - properly maintaining one set of packaging data is
> > enough work already, and nothing stops a distribution from discarding
> > usr/src/pkgdefs in favour of its own solution.
>
> In case you would e.g. write a hypothetical rpm implementation on top
> of the AT&T/Sun package database, this could work. If you just contemporatily
> use unrelated package managers, you will get into trouble with overlaps.
Normally (to the extent that using rpm on Unix is ever "normal", even if
some very large Sun shops do it ;-) what you do when using rpm on top of
SysV packaging is install the base system using SysV. After you get rpm on
there (either from source or from a SysV package) you then run scripts
which generate fake rpms that provide all the dependency information which
represents by the Solaris-packaged stuff. You install those fake rpms,
then do the rest of your application installs on that box using rpm. That
works, as long as you stick to rpm from there on out.
It also sometimes gets messy to manage if patch changes shift dependencies
(ie, a new patch adds a new feature that should be registered as a
dependency, but which isn't because it wasn't in the original package
version). That's kinda an inherent complication due to the Solaris
"package management is one thing, patch management is something else"
distinction that's counter to rpm's "patches are built into packages and
you just manage packages" approach
The Rutgers stuff is probably the most thorough publicly accessible info
source for rpm on Solaris. See <http://.
later,
chris
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
116
From:
Registered:
6/19/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 10:29 AM
in response to: kaboom
|
|
> oriented around providing
> both binaries and
> reproducible (but customizable when needed) builds of
> those binaries would
> be a Good Thing
did I hear 'customizable'? say hello to portage!! that's one cool feature of portage. You install what you customize. USE flags in portage provide you the flexibility of installing everything without ldap by just setting/unsetting a flag for example. The same flags can be used per-package on the command line or specified in portage file one line per package.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,871
From:
GB
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 2:19 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 12:43, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> Tending to be a bit of a reductionist, I can't help but throw out what
> I think is the #1 foundational question here.
>
> What's the best package architecture (database) standard for
> OpenSolaris? The canonicial choices, listed alphabetically, are:
Are we talking about adding packaging to the source
currently on OpenSolaris.org and by implication the packaging system
for the Solaris product based on OpenSolaris or are we talking about
packaging systems for future/current distributions ?
Just like with Linux I kind of expected that each distribution
that is based on OpenSolaris would do what suites them. In fact
I'd really like to see OpenSolaris distributions that use
rpm or deb as their defaults - if for no other reason than to
prove it can be done but - because this will help us all
work out what really is best.
It would be very interesting to see rpm used the way it is
used to build Fedora, ie use the build and package system rather
than just the package system. However that requires significant
re whack of the ON consolidation build system I expect.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 3:37 PM
in response to: darrenm
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 12:43, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> > Tending to be a bit of a reductionist, I can't help but throw out what
> > I think is the #1 foundational question here.
> >
> > What's the best package architecture (database) standard for
> > OpenSolaris? The canonicial choices, listed alphabetically, are:
>
> Are we talking about adding packaging to the source
> currently on OpenSolaris.org and by implication the packaging system
> for the Solaris product based on OpenSolaris or are we talking about
> packaging systems for future/current distributions ?
The latter.
> Just like with Linux I kind of expected that each distribution
> that is based on OpenSolaris would do what suites them.
So "them" is this commuity here, and the "distribution" is SchilliX. So
in that context, "What suites us?" is the issue I'm raising.
> In fact
> I'd really like to see OpenSolaris distributions that use
> rpm or deb as their defaults - if for no other reason than to
> prove it can be done but - because this will help us all
> work out what really is best.
Just a point of clarification re: rpm vs. deb: A Solaris implementation
of an rpm binary package system/repository has been done (the OpenPKG
project), whereas nobody has done a Solaris implementation of deb yet.
> It would be very interesting to see rpm used the way it is
> used to build Fedora, ie use the build and package system rather
> than just the package system. However that requires significant
> re whack of the ON consolidation build system I expect.
Along these lines, there are two auto-build systems for Solaris now:
SPS and pkgsrc; and strong interest in doing Gentoo/Portage (e-builds,
etc.) for Solaris too.
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
818
From:
San Francisco CA US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 6:40 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
> So "them" is this commuity here, and the "distribution" is SchilliX. So
> in that context, "What suites us?" is the issue I'm raising.
I'd think the packaging system used by SchilliX is for Joerg to
decide, in concert with his user base, no?
> Along these lines, there are two auto-build systems for Solaris now:
> SPS and pkgsrc; and strong interest in doing Gentoo/Portage (e-builds,
> etc.) for Solaris too.
Google for 'portaris' and see that in fact there's already a working
prototype.
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
Solaris Kernel Team "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:37 PM
in response to: wesolows
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 05:37:59PM -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote:
>
> > So "them" is this commuity here, and the "distribution" is SchilliX. So
> > in that context, "What suites us?" is the issue I'm raising.
>
> I'd think the packaging system used by SchilliX is for Joerg to
> decide, in concert with his user base, no?
Keith -- Good point.
Joerg -- Questions for you...
- You have expressed a desire that the package infrastructure
(registry, dependency tracking) for SchilliX be the Solaris standard
(svr4), provided we can open-source it soon enough, correct?
- And how would you feel if others were to make independent SchilliX
derivatives based on say rpm, pkgsrc, or portage packaging systems?
Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jul 1, 2005 9:30 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> - You have expressed a desire that the package infrastructure
> (registry, dependency tracking) for SchilliX be the Solaris standard
> (svr4), provided we can open-source it soon enough, correct?
Yes.
> - And how would you feel if others were to make independent SchilliX
> derivatives based on say rpm, pkgsrc, or portage packaging systems?
I am trying to provide a basic OS platform and people who use it
are free to do whatever they like.
The selection of bits on SchilliX-0.1 has been done in a way that it
allows you to start any compilation for free software without being forced
to first fetch/compile other bits or with minimal problems.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
116
From:
Registered:
6/19/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 4:22 PM
in response to: ericb
|
|
> - A big strike against deb and portage (for
> Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> that no work's been done yet.
you assume too much...:)
work on portage for opensolaris has been slow. there are battles to be fought with gentoo people for full support. And there is of course lot of work to get it going smoothly.
I am currently testing it in its zone (what a freaking relief in the thought that I won't kill my system as often as I would without zones). should have some patches for gentoo folks and an update for you folks here soon (its vacation time here..:)).
portage is a beautiful system with over 100K packages ready to build with full dep tracking and flexibility of being able to create and install binary packages. I am going to add few more to that list for opensolaris.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 7:09 PM
in response to: devsk
|
|
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote:
> > - A big strike against deb and portage (for
> > Solaris/OpenSolaris) is
> > that no work's been done yet.
> you assume too much...:)
>
> work on portage for opensolaris has been slow. there are battles to be fought with gentoo people for full support. And there is of course lot of work to get it going smoothly.
>
> I am currently testing it in its zone (what a freaking relief in the thought that I won't kill my system as often as I would without zones). should have some patches for gentoo folks and an update for you folks here soon (its vacation time here..:)).
>
> portage is a beautiful system with over 100K packages ready to build with full dep tracking and flexibility of being able to create and install binary packages. I am going to add few more to that list for opensolaris.
Sunil -- This is great news, I happily stand corrected!
Incidentally, I recently took the latest release of the Gentoo-based
Vidalinux Desktop OS (VLOS 1.2); installed just the minimum packages
needed to have a lightweight, dedicated "XMMS appliance" on an old 266 Mhz
laptop; loaded it with mp3s; and connected the line-out to a stereo amp
using a cable purchased at Radio Shack. In other words, an otherwise
nearly-obsolete laptop has been reincarnated into a color-screen,
mp3-playing component of the stereo system in our family room.
And of course the OpenSolaris milestone I eagerly look forward to is
the day I can re-install this setup with equal ease and transparency
using an OpenSolaris-based distro instead of a Linux-based one.
--Eric
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
15
From:
Switzerland
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 7:19 AM
in response to: mgyger
|
|
> Eric Boutilier writes:
<snip>
> > * deb
> > * pkgsrc (implemented by pkgsrc system)
> > * portage
> > * rpm (implemented by the openpkg system)
> > * solaris packaging (implemented by Sun,
> Blastwave, and Sunfreeware)
> > * tww (implemented by tww system)
Hi Eric
If you don't mind, I like "tww(implemented by tww system)" to be stated as
HPMS(implemented by TWW Inc.)
My workplace dropped our own HPMS homegrown implementation a few years back in favor of TWW one becuase it is much more complete and well supported by a commercial vendor (TWW Inc.). At that time our HPMS only support soarlis and hpux and TWW Inc. was already support major commercial Uinxen alreay.
Hyper PMS is to bring peace to the Unix flaors wars, a situation people in Unix camp should ponder upon while watching the invasion of Windows machines into IT center.
HPMS and the need of CPAM(Cross-Platform Application Managemetn), is to make Unixen application management easy. one consistent way to install,remove,create,update and distribute applications, period. no more high cost of trying to remember rpm,swinstall,pkgadd syntax to manage a application.
later
tj
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
17
From:
Registered:
6/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 11:37 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
> I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg system
will become OpenSource soon.
Lets start working on solutions anyway. Just in case you run out of breath while you hold it while waiting for Sun to release. Why rely on kindness on the long term when a solution on the short term is needed?
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 1:48 PM
in response to: ftempel
|
|
> > I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg
> system
> will become OpenSource soon.
>
> Lets start working on solutions anyway. Just in case
> you run out of breath while you hold it while waiting
> for Sun to release. Why rely on kindness on the long
> term when a solution on the short term is needed?
To avoid reinvent the wheel (PMS). Please spare us (at least me ;)to learn
yet another PMS.
SVR4(ie,pkgadd) PMS is not up to modern PMS architecture.
so either wait for its opensource to enhance the missing feature or
use TWW HPMS that already fill the missing features for us.
missing features
- auto installation of depended packages.
- application depot
- xml pacakge source to encapture package creation process
- ....
Why not using GPL/opensoruce TWW HPMS ?
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/CPAM_with_TWW is the starting URL.
tj
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
17
From:
Registered:
6/18/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 2:40 PM
in response to: tjyang
|
|
Just like most "meta" packaging systems this looks like a major headache for anything else but software which has no real dependencies outside what itself provides. The example you give, Oracle, IBM products, etc, are relatively easy to install when compared to more "basic" stuff like, oh, KDE for example. The amount of dependencies and the algorithms to resolve them in a sane matter are not something to you're likely to implement properly into a tool which needs to support a whole lot of package formats in any other way than just basic functionality like bluntly installing and uninstalling a single rpm/deb/msi/whatever.
Anyway, it looks like you're trying to plug your own product. Nothing wrong with that, except that it's probably the first time most of us here have heard about it in the firstplace (it was for me anyway). If that is the case I estimate your chances to be slim to find much adoption for something which is both unproven and underdocumented.
I don't have a solution for the dilemma this community seems to be in. If it were my call, I'd pick the packaging system which is very well documented, performs well and has a lot of packages for it already. From where I'm sitting that qualifies RPM and DPKG. When you throw in the requirement for the proper tools and documentation to handle those packages (install, remove, dependency resolving, etc) and to create them in the firstplace, I'd say DPKG/APT/devscripts wins hands down.
But maybe that's just because I like Debian :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,154
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 3:27 PM
in response to: ftempel
|
|
On 8/3/05, Ferdinand O. Tempel <ftempel at linuxops dot net> wrote:
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma this community seems to be in. If it were my call, I'd pick the packaging system which is very well documented, performs well and has a lot of packages for it already. From where I'm sitting that qualifies RPM and DPKG. When you throw in the requirement for the proper tools and documentation to handle those packages (install, remove, dependency resolving, etc) and to create them in the firstplace, I'd say DPKG/APT/devscripts wins hands down.
>
> But maybe that's just because I like Debian :-)
It must be, because my experience with creating Debian packages has
been anything but pleasant. Creating Debian packages far more complex
than writing (what can be) a relatively simple RPM .spec file and
calling rpmbuild. It's possible dpkg is technically suerior, but RPM
was far easier for me to learn and has been far easier to use.
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
binarycrusader at gmail dot com - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
899
From:
AR
Registered:
6/24/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 10:30 AM
in response to: swalker
|
|
Hi.
RPM is a good tool, but has some limitations with the management of the dependencies.
I think APT-like commands works in a better way, and in some Debian based distros, like Debian, Ubuntu, etc., if you want to upgrade your entire system you only need to do a "apt-get dist-upgrade", that's all.
Imagine this behaviour when trying to upgrade between different builds. Great...
I think apt is the best distribution method we can use in OpenSolaris.
In Debian the community has some sections of developers that only contribute packaging some binaries, and generating the .deb package. This can work the same way for the OpenSolaris distros.
Greetings.
HeCSa.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 8:08 PM
in response to: ftempel
|
|
> Just like most "meta" packaging systems this looks
> like a major headache for anything else but software
> which has no real dependencies outside what itself
> provides. The example you give, Oracle, IBM products,
> etc, are relatively easy to install when compared to
> more "basic" stuff like, oh, KDE for example. The
> amount of dependencies and the algorithms to resolve
> them in a sane matter are not something to you're
> likely to implement properly into a tool which needs
> to support a whole lot of package formats in any
> other way than just basic functionality like bluntly
> installing and uninstalling a single
> rpm/deb/msi/whatever.
IBM clearcase and oracle examples were given for the need
of single application installer/remover not becuase they
are simple standalone application.
kde is already packaged by TWW Inc., please look at the package source here
ftp://support.thewrittenword.com/dists/7.0/src/kde-3.3.2/sb-db.xml
it is not easy task especially this sb-db.xml runs on most Unixen. with
just a "sb kde-3.3.2/sb-db.xml" command. Read through the sb-db.xml
I hope you can appreicate the written words of wisdom on how to build kde
on many version of Unixen.
Beside yourslef after reading pages now compilation how text file, Do you want others to compile opensolaris easily ? please read this opensolaris-1.0.sb. at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/OpenSolaris/Developer
opensolaris-1.0.sb digitalize the process of compiling opensolaris in a xml file
so others can repeat. Do you like the command "configure" after you unpack
the tar.gz file ? tww tools is next good thing happen after autoconf/automake tool.
> Anyway, it looks like you're trying to plug your own
> product. Nothing wrong with that, except that it's
> probably the first time most of us here have heard
> about it in the firstplace (it was for me anyway). If
> that is the case I estimate your chances to be slim
> to find much adoption for something which is both
> unproven and underdocumented.
I will be honored if TWW tool is my product . I don't have
any personal business relationship with the company.
I am just a happy customer of TWW Inc.
I feel strange also why TWW HPMS is not well known.
Perhaps TWW's IT customers are using it as a secret weapon
to keep their jobs from outsoucing ;)
Where are you ? the TWW customers.
Don't leave me fighting the battle along here.
Anyway, I believe in TWW HPMS and I like to promote this tool
in my free time. What TWW HPMS need now is publicity to gain Internet momentum.
TWW HPMS is so cool to me (unix admin) that I even make up
CPAM and HPMS acronyms to build a bridge to TWW acronmy.
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma this
> community seems to be in. If it were my call, I'd
> pick the packaging system which is very well
> documented, performs well and has a lot of packages
> for it already. From where I'm sitting that qualifies
> RPM and DPKG. When you throw in the requirement for
> the proper tools and documentation to handle those
> packages (install, remove, dependency resolving, etc)
> and to create them in the firstplace, I'd say
> DPKG/APT/devscripts wins hands down.
I don't remembe the exact but even Steve Job say something like following
when he once gave up NeXTStep/Mac vs Windows desktop battle.
In order to win, the new comer has to be 10 times better.
My version on PMS war/debate is
Unless the new PMS is 10 times better than existing PMS otherwise
improve it bit by bit or live with it. Because the cost of removing legacy built around the old PMS will eat up all the benifit the new PMS bring.
I would like to extend your "this community" to include Unixen community.
I don't have solution for the diffcult situation the Unixen community either.
But I do know TWW HPMS is least intrusive and most cost effictive for us
today before we have only one Unix version. "us" may only limited to IT centers only becuase end users at home has not much legacy to deal with.
The better the Local PMS the less work Hyper PMS need
to do except wrap around the underneath command line
tool.
> But maybe that's just because I like Debian :-)
To bring home food, I need to like and tame the Unixen in
my workplace but Debian is not one of them so far ;)
Not much experience with Debian except I ported sb in TWW tools over
without much diffculty along with Mac OS X and Linksys nslu2.
tj
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 3:48 AM
in response to: ftempel
|
|
"Ferdinand O. Tempel" <ftempel at linuxops dot net> wrote:
> > I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg system
> will become OpenSource soon.
>
> Lets start working on solutions anyway. Just in case you run out of breath while you hold it while waiting for Sun to release. Why rely on kindness on the long term when a solution on the short term is needed?
Sun needs to opensource the package system or to rewrite
the zones code. Sun advertizes that OpenSolaris includes
Zones but they rely on the missing package system.
I am working on a simple package system that allows an automated
generation of SchilliX. If I sum up the time I was working on
things (missing to be OSS) like libm, packaging etc., it seems that
more than half of the time I am working on SchilliX is spend on
the missing code.
Important things for now are:
- libm currently replaced by a ported version from FreeBSD
- pkg I am using a star based system to create the SchilliX ISO
- sccs currently missing completely
- bzip2/gzip I am using the official recent versions although
Sun provides their sources
- NSPR Netscape Portable Runtime (LDAP libs)
Sun's source is not available.....we needed to
find something by our own but there is no idea
whether we use the same version as Sun.
We have been able to compile the official source
but we have not been able to create amd64 binaries.
- libxml2 we compile official sources (2.6.19).
we recently succeeded to build a amd64 version.
Sun seems to use 2.6.9 and only gives this info:
Built with the Sun Workshop Compilers.
Configured with:
./configure --prefix=/usr --with-threads --without-python
- Some SMF files are missing and I did write my own.
- libz Sun uses an old version, we use zlib-1.2.3
- NIC drivers Various nic drivers are missing, we use the ones
from Masayuki Murayama
- unzip Sun's source is not available, we compiled the
official version.
- wget we compile the same version as Sun probably not
with the same condifuration.
- INSTALL The install system from Sun is completely missing
we needed to create our own framework.
Various programs that Sun did put into /usr/sfw/bin/ are present on
SchilliX but not always with the same version as Sun uses.
Of course, this may cause compatibility problems, but as long as Sun does
not provide Sun's build system for these programs, it is just faster to
get recent versions and create an own build system.
We use:
bash-3.0
bind-9.2.4
bzip2-1.0.3
gmake-3.80
gpatch-2.5.4
gtar-1.15.1 Patched to by default create POSIX compliant archives.
gzip-1.3.3
libxml2-2.6.19
samba-3.0.14a
screen-4.0.2
texinfo-4.8
wget-1.9.1
zlib-1.2.3
As we don't have the same versions of the programs, I cannot put them in
/usr/sfw/. I am using /opt/schily, /usr/gnu, /usr/bsd/ and /usr/sps/ instead.
Note that I tried several times to start a discussion about a set of rules for
the filesystem hierarchy (Sun currently does not follow real rules) to no avail.
I hope that this list again helps to understand where the problems are.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,697
From:
US
Registered:
4/28/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 9:19 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Ferdinand O. Tempel" <ftempel at linuxops dot net> wrote:
>
> > > I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg system
> > will become OpenSource soon.
> >
> > Lets start working on solutions anyway. Just in case you run out of breath while you hold it while waiting for Sun to release. Why rely on kindness on the long term when a solution on the short term is needed?
>
> Sun needs to opensource the package system or to rewrite
> the zones code. Sun advertizes that OpenSolaris includes
> Zones but they rely on the missing package system.
I think it's well established now that using the word "OpenSolaris" in
isolation refers to a source-code base not a binary build. So
OpenSolaris does include zones.
> I am working on a simple package system that allows an automated
> generation of SchilliX. If I sum up the time I was working on
> things (missing to be OSS) like libm, packaging etc., it seems that
> more than half of the time I am working on SchilliX is spend on
> the missing code.
Nice! this (below) is a great progress write-up on some great work!
Eric
>
> Important things for now are:
>
> - libm currently replaced by a ported version from FreeBSD
>
> - pkg I am using a star based system to create the SchilliX ISO
>
> - sccs currently missing completely
>
> - bzip2/gzip I am using the official recent versions although
> Sun provides their sources
>
> - NSPR Netscape Portable Runtime (LDAP libs)
> Sun's source is not available.....we needed to
> find something by our own but there is no idea
> whether we use the same version as Sun.
>
> We have been able to compile the official source
> but we have not been able to create amd64 binaries.
>
> - libxml2 we compile official sources (2.6.19).
> we recently succeeded to build a amd64 version.
>
> Sun seems to use 2.6.9 and only gives this info:
>
> Built with the Sun Workshop Compilers.
>
> Configured with:
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-threads --without-python
>
> - Some SMF files are missing and I did write my own.
>
> - libz Sun uses an old version, we use zlib-1.2.3
>
> - NIC drivers Various nic drivers are missing, we use the ones
> from Masayuki Murayama
>
> - unzip Sun's source is not available, we compiled the
> official version.
>
> - wget we compile the same version as Sun probably not
> with the same condifuration.
>
> - INSTALL The install system from Sun is completely missing
> we needed to create our own framework.
>
> Various programs that Sun did put into /usr/sfw/bin/ are present on
> SchilliX but not always with the same version as Sun uses.
> Of course, this may cause compatibility problems, but as long as Sun does
> not provide Sun's build system for these programs, it is just faster to
> get recent versions and create an own build system.
>
> We use:
>
> bash-3.0
> bind-9.2.4
> bzip2-1.0.3
> gmake-3.80
> gpatch-2.5.4
> gtar-1.15.1 Patched to by default create POSIX compliant archives.
> gzip-1.3.3
> libxml2-2.6.19
> samba-3.0.14a
> screen-4.0.2
> texinfo-4.8
> wget-1.9.1
> zlib-1.2.3
>
> As we don't have the same versions of the programs, I cannot put them in
> /usr/sfw/. I am using /opt/schily, /usr/gnu, /usr/bsd/ and /usr/sps/ instead.
>
> Note that I tried several times to start a discussion about a set of rules for
> the filesystem hierarchy (Sun currently does not follow real rules) to no avail.
>
>
> I hope that this list again helps to understand where the problems are.
>
>
> J?rg
>
> --
> EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
> js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
> schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-discuss mailing list
> opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
>
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 11:50 AM
in response to: ericb
|
|
Eric Boutilier <Eric dot Boutilier at Sun dot COM> wrote:
> > I am working on a simple package system that allows an automated
> > generation of SchilliX. If I sum up the time I was working on
> > things (missing to be OSS) like libm, packaging etc., it seems that
> > more than half of the time I am working on SchilliX is spend on
> > the missing code.
>
> Nice! this (below) is a great progress write-up on some great work!
SchilliX-0.1+ is made of 51 packages:
aperture.tar.bz2 Aperture Driver Install
b17.tar.bz2 Build 17 compile results Install
bash.tar Bash-3.0 Install
bzip2.tar Bzip2-2-1.0.3 install
cdrom.tar /cdrom & /.cdrom directories Install
dev.tar /dev/* basic content Install
dot.tar /.??* files for root Install
eeprom-kbd-type.tar bootenv.rc Patch
etc-release.tar /etc/release Install
etc-shells.tar /etc/shells Install
etc_rtc.tar /etc/rtc_config Install
ex-home.tar /export/home Install
fakeroot.tar Fakeroot Instal
fs-root.tar lib/svc/method/fs-root Patch
gcc-3.4.3-csl-20050525.i386.tar.bz2 GCC Install
gcc-patch.tar GCC Patch
generic-drivers.tar Driver config data Patch
gmake.tar gmake-3.80 Install
gpatch.tar gpatch-2.5.4 Install
gtar.tar gtar-1.15.1 Install
gzip.tar gzip-1.3.3 Install
hosts-loghost.tar /etc/hosts Patch
init-tz.tar default init TZ= Patch
install-help.tar Install helper Files Install
keyboard-layout.tar usr/lib/set_keyboard_layout Patch
ksh.tar ksh93 Install
libm.tar libm.so port Install
libmps.tar.gz NSPR (LDAP pam) Install
libxml2.tar libxml-2.6.19 Install
libz.tar libz-1.2.3 Install
memtest.tar Memtest X86 Install
menu.lst grub boot menu Install
nic-driver.tar.bz2 Masayuki Murayama NICs Install
nsswitch-dns.tar /etc/nsswitch.conf Patch
opt-schily-add.tar /opt/schily add ons Install
opt-schily.tar /opt/schily/* Install
passwd-add.tar /etc/passwd Patch
pod2man.tar pod2man-1.37 Install
profile-path.tar /etc/profile Patch
reconf.tar /reconfigure Install
repository.tar.bz2 svcs initial database Install
resolv-conf.tar /etc/resolv.conf Install
splash-s3.xpm.gz SchilliX boot Splash Install
sshd-hostkey.tar lib/svc/method/sshd Patch
sshd-rootlogin.tar /etc/ssh/sshd_config Patch
svc.tar svcs Services Install
system-add.tar /etc/system Patch
texinfo.tar texinfo-4.8 Install
unzip.tar unzip-5.52 Install
vfstab.tar /etc/vfstab Patch
wget.tar wget-1.9.1 Install
Each install archive contains install data and/or auto executed
postinscall scripts and patches.....
A patch is a install archive with zero install data.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Tucker
agtucker@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 11:01 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
On 8/4/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
> Sun needs to opensource the package system or to rewrite
> the zones code. Sun advertizes that OpenSolaris includes
> Zones but they rely on the missing package system.
Until the packaging source (or at least redistributable binaries) is
released, you could always write a simple replacement for
/usr/lib/lu/lucreatezone (which does most of the work of "zoneadm
install") and make it available with SchilliX. Most of the
complexity of lucreatezone has to do with ensuring that the target
zone winds up with a consistent package database; aside from this,
it's really just copying various files from the global zone into the
target zone (and restoring a few config files to their virgin states).
In fact, during the development of zones we used various hacky
scripts to do this, which worked reasonably well as long as you didn't
expect to be able to patch or upgrade the result. Perhaps David or
Dan could dig out some version of those scripts. Follow-ups should go
to zones-discuss (which I've cc'd).
Andy
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
3,928
From:
DE
Registered:
4/27/05
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package
managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 11:52 AM
in response to: Andy Tucker
|
|
Andy Tucker <agtucker at gmail dot com> wrote:
> On 8/4/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de> wrote:
> > Sun needs to opensource the package system or to rewrite
> > the zones code. Sun advertizes that OpenSolaris includes
> > Zones but they rely on the missing package system.
>
> Until the packaging source (or at least redistributable binaries) is
> released, you could always write a simple replacement for
> /usr/lib/lu/lucreatezone (which does most of the work of "zoneadm
> install") and make it available with SchilliX. Most of the
Thank you! This is the information I'd liked to get.
For SchilliX-0.2 it will be too late, but it makes sense for 0.3
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg at schily dot isdn dot cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
schilling at fokus dot fraunhofer dot de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
2,046
From:
US
Registered:
3/9/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 8:25 AM
in response to: joerg
|
|
Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
> I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg system
> will become OpenSource soon.
>
Let me provide an update. We who are responsible for the install and
packaging code are just now beginning the diligence research required so
that we can release it. The basic plan is to complete the diligence on
the package utilities as soon as we can and (assuming we don't find
issues) release the package utilities as redistributable binaries ASAP,
to be followed by the code; because the package tools live in a
different consolidation than the ON pieces released to OpenSolaris so
far, so the code release will require more work on our end. The rest of
the install code will be dealt with as a separate project.
As we're just getting started I can't yet supply any estimate for how
quickly this will be completed, just that we're doing the best we can.
Dave
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
206
From:
AU
Registered:
6/13/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 4, 2005 4:15 PM
in response to: dminer
|
|
Dave Miner wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> ...
>
>> I thought we are still in hope that the SVr4 pkg system
>> will become OpenSource soon.
>>
>
> Let me provide an update. We who are responsible for the install and
> packaging code are just now beginning the diligence research required so
> that we can release it. The basic plan is to complete the diligence on
> the package utilities as soon as we can and (assuming we don't find
> issues) release the package utilities as redistributable binaries ASAP,
> to be followed by the code; because the package tools live in a
> different consolidation than the ON pieces released to OpenSolaris so
> far, so the code release will require more work on our end. The rest of
> the install code will be dealt with as a separate project.
>
> As we're just getting started I can't yet supply any estimate for how
> quickly this will be completed, just that we're doing the best we can.
This is great news Dave. It's always good to see what progress is being
made on important issues like this one.
Please keep the updates coming :)
alan.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss at opensolaris dot org
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,732
From:
Registered:
7/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 2, 2005 11:29 PM
in response to: tjyang
|
|
> or Hyper PMS. LPMS candidate for opensolaris are
> Portage and pkg-get.
Portage? I certinaly hope not! Portage has a serious design flaw, as described in the Gentoo documentation:
"[I]However, a big warning applies: Portage will not check if the package you want to remove is required by another package. It will however warn you when you want to remove an important package that breaks your system if you unmerge it.[/I]"
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-alpha.xml?part=2&chap=1
`pkg-get` is not an LPMS as you'd call it, it's a script that adds `apt-get` like functionality and uses Sun's native SVR4 software management subsystem.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
165
From:
US
Registered:
6/14/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Aug 3, 2005 7:29 AM
in response to: ux-admin
|
|
> `pkg-get` is not an LPMS as you'd call it, it's a
> script that adds `apt-get` like functionality and
> uses Sun's native SVR4 software management subsystem.
If this is the case then pkg-get is a Hyper PMS only support Solaris OS.
Sorry, I did not research pkg-get's architecture.
tj
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
ZA
Registered:
6/15/05
|
|
|
|
Re: OpenSolaris distributions and package managment
Posted:
Jun 29, 2005 10:09 AM
in response to: burgerw
|
|
Thanks guys ... and Albert.
Your blog sums it up really well, ... "hometown swamped with tourists".
:)
|
|
|
|
|
