That's all nice and well, but did you happen to notice that SUNW packages had to be converted to DEBs? Do you realize the implications of this? It will be a tremendous amount of work to convert SVR4 SUNW packages to DEBs every time a new release is made. This holds especially true now that Nevada builds are coming out every two weeks or so. And what about SVR4 structure/layout? Debian knows nothing of SVR4 standards. It's GNU userland on top of some (any) kernel. Yet SVR4 structure and layout has been one of the core usability strengths of Solaris. And finally, what implications will the eventual release of SVR4 packaging tools (pkgadd and friends) have for Nexenta? Some will argue it's all about choice. However, how am I going to upgrade my Nexenta system when new functionality is introduced by Sun? I can't do a Solaris upgrade because Debian and Solaris are completely incompatible. What are your opinions on the practicality of such a solution?

Posted by ux-admin on November 08, 2005 at 01:47 AM PST #

ux-admin: First, understand that I'm not advocating ditching SVR4 package management in Solaris. I am however claiming that giving users some choice in packagement management is a Good Thing. In terms of the practicality of upgrading the kernel, the Nexenta approach is (ironically) more in keeping with the approach we use internally: we have a monster of a script called BFU that splats the latest cpio archives on a running machine. Modifying BFU to be able to make it manageable by the Debian package management tools might be non-trivial, but it won't be impossible. And in terms of the consequences of releasing the SVR4 packaging tools, I think that will only be a Good Thing -- it will allow for some SVR4-based distros. (For example, Blastwave would be in much wider use if it were a distro, in my opinion.) If you a Solaris user, all of this is good: it means more choice for you, bigger markets for the ISVs that serve you, etc. -- which serves to drive down your costs. So yes, I'm obviously one of those that would argue that Choice is Good.

Posted by Bryan Cantrill on November 08, 2005 at 10:52 AM PST #

I don't want to recreate that thread here, but in my opinion the claim is absolutely absurd: libc is in no way a derivative work of GPL'd software, and it has no dependency on GPL'd software; the talk of the "special exception" is actually immaterial because libc cannot be considered part of the Program. That is, the GPL can't actual say anything about rights not reserved for the copyright holder to begin with -- and indeed, there seem to be a few Debian developers who are rather obsessed with rights that they do not have. I trust that these are the minority; I think many if not most will realize that this is just as good for Debian as it is for OpenSolaris.

Posted by Bryan Cantrill on November 08, 2005 at 08:48 PM PST #

They're not claiming libc is a derivate work. RMS really hates people who claim that the GPL is viral. What the GPL says (it has a specific clause) in this case is you can't distribute (this non-GPL library) libc and a GPL'd program together. Distributing separately is fine (hence blastwave has no problems).

Posted by James on November 20, 2005 at 10:14 AM PST #