[illumos-Discuss] Bounty for porting OpenSolaris to ARM

[Chris Pickett]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett at damore.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 14:58 +0200, Chris Pickett wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Icy EyeG <icy.dearchild at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I don't know if the developers of Illumos already know this, but there's a
>> > non profit organization called Power2People that is hosting a bounty for
>> > porting OpenSolaris to ARM, funded by Genesi.
>> > Details of the bounty here: http://www.power2people.org/bounty_044.html
>> >
>> > Power2People has hosted multiple bounties already for AROS, and thanks to
>> > it, AROS has improved tremendously. I hope it can do the same to
>> > OpenSolaris/Illumos.
>>
>> I like to get a clear word from Nexenta *first* before anyone spends
>> time with such a project:
>
> First off, Nexenta doesn't have the final word here.  If the
> developer-council and advocates agree that this (or any other project)

Who is the developer-council and how can a company contact them? Who
are the advocates?

> either should or should not be integrated, then that decision will be
> binding.  (The fact that significant leadership of the project are
> Nexenta employees is a red herring.)

How can the community get clarity before a project is created? IMO no
one here is willing to be the next Hans Reiser and get his work of
many years rejected because it does not follow the spirit of the
kernel coding style or similar nonsense cover for political issues.

>> Will such an ARM port be developed and maintained as part of the
>> Illumos main hg repository or will it be delegated to a different
>> repository and never be integrated into the mainline?
>
> If the porters can convince us that:

Who is us?

>
>
>        a) They are ready from a quality standpoint, and

This must be precisely defined and binding for ALL contributors, even you.

>        b) They have long term commitment to supporting the code, and

That's reasonable.

>        c) That we can get some some sample hardware to build and test on, and

That's reasonable.

>        d) There are no other reasons (licensing, or otherwise) why they should
> not be integrated,

What are the other reasons. Please elaborate. The community and
potential companies joining Illumos need clear definitions. before
spending their money. See Reiser4. See OpenOffice.

> then I see no reason why ARM support could not be integrated into
> illumos.

That sounds good..

Chris
-- 
    ^---^
   (@)v(@)  Chris Pickett
   |    /   IT consultant
 ===m==m=== pkchris at users.sourceforge.net