Hi Shawn,
On 03/25/09 20:49, Shawn Walker wrote:
> jan damborsky wrote:
>> Based on this, I am thinking if it might be better approach to
>> encapsulate
>> the implementation on IPS server side and introduce API to provide
>> these kind of information to potential consumers.
>>
>> Then I think we might eliminate the bottleneck between IPS server
>> and client and make the implementation on AI client side more robust.
>>
>> >From IPS point of view, might it sound as reasonable approach to
>> try or might it be better to think about other possible solutions ?
>
> The server doesn't know what exactly the client will install (it's
> more than just a list of packages that determines what files are
> installed). The client would have to provide that information, and I
> don't think that's a direction we want to go.
Thank you for clarifying this. Then I would like to ask you,
if you might help us to clarify what is the right approach
from IPS point of view to solve following problems AI will
have to address:
Given list of IPS objects (packages, clusters), AI would like
to have way to determine:
[1] How much space will be required to put those bits on target
[2] Complete list of packages to be installed and total size
of bits to be downloaded - this information would be useful
when AI will be enhanced to provide information about
progress of the installation process.
There is one potential solution mentioned in this thread
(inspecting pkg.size and output of 'pkg install -vn').
Is this something which might be considered supported
approach and the right way to go from IPS point of view ?
Thank you,
Jan
