Should PSIs be standardized by Zowe or can vendors create their own PSIs for redistributing Zowe? (TSC)

[solsu01]

Should Zowe standardize PSI distribution of Zowe?

Or do should vendors be allowed to determine what should be included in their PSIs?

Should there be "conformance" for vendor distributions of Zowe to enforce preferences like this?

[armstro]

@solsu01 this was discussed at ZLC today as possible duplication of https://github.com/zowe/zlc/issues/168 Explore use of Portable Software Instance (PSI) zowe/community#956.....on reading your issue I think there are different topics - zowe/community#956 is about using the PSI "technology" (my term) for future distributions of Zowe. (SMP/E today and PSI next phase.)

I think this item is more about what the "contents" are in a PSI package when created and how to avoid Zowe being bundled with one of more other pieces of software and therefore causing a customer to install multiple copies of Zowe. I will keep the item separate but we might consider how to merge the issues.

Having a separate Zowe PSI is a candidate for Zowe "support conformance" criteria also - zlc issue zowe/zlc#170

[solsu01]

Your interpretation of this issue's intent is accurate. It's not whether or not we should provide a PSI, but whether vendors should keep the PSI untouched when they re-distribute (maybe for support offering purposes) or if they are allowed to create their own PSIs.

[balhar-jakub]

The answer is of know Zowe provides PSI and the vendors should use the default Zowe PSI and not modify it so that all the support vendors can properly support Zowe installed by any of the vendors.