<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: local pkg server not starting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nathanpowell.org/blog/archives/865/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nathanpowell.org/blog/archives/865</link>
	<description>Bad running advice, boring family stuff, and technology few find interesting</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:48:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Powell</title>
		<link>http://nathanpowell.org/blog/archives/865/comment-page-1#comment-86575</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Powell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanpowell.org/blog/?p=865#comment-86575</guid>
		<description>I know you are kidding, but one thing that I do agree with is that from a Linux Admin perspective the Solaris patching/packaging system always seemed overly complicated and dodgey.

There are arguments to explain that, but perception is reality for folks, and I think it gave Solaris packaging a bad name.

After I ran through that tutorial I rolled up rlwrap as well to see if what I did above got my head around it all, and my honest opinion is that IPS is pretty well done.

After some further investigation, the submission process to get a package into /contrib requires a spec file (that is largely (totally?) rpm compliant) that you don&#039;t actually build with those directions, so that was slightly confusing at first.  After a day to think about it though I think it makes sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know you are kidding, but one thing that I do agree with is that from a Linux Admin perspective the Solaris patching/packaging system always seemed overly complicated and dodgey.</p>
<p>There are arguments to explain that, but perception is reality for folks, and I think it gave Solaris packaging a bad name.</p>
<p>After I ran through that tutorial I rolled up rlwrap as well to see if what I did above got my head around it all, and my honest opinion is that IPS is pretty well done.</p>
<p>After some further investigation, the submission process to get a package into /contrib requires a spec file (that is largely (totally?) rpm compliant) that you don&#8217;t actually build with those directions, so that was slightly confusing at first.  After a day to think about it though I think it makes sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Igo</title>
		<link>http://nathanpowell.org/blog/archives/865/comment-page-1#comment-86564</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Igo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nathanpowell.org/blog/?p=865#comment-86564</guid>
		<description>Wow, OpenSolaris works so well now!  In the old days of Solaris, making a package required you to hand-edit a binary file by poking the spinning platter with a magnetized needle.  This is so much better!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, OpenSolaris works so well now!  In the old days of Solaris, making a package required you to hand-edit a binary file by poking the spinning platter with a magnetized needle.  This is so much better!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

