On 07/30/09 13:15, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Jack Schwartz wrote:
>> Hi Shawn.
>>
>> On 07/30/09 11:19, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>> Dave Miner wrote:
>>>> Shawn Walker wrote:
>>>>> SVR4 package support is fairly minimal at the moment, and is
>>>>> deprecated or obsolete (not sure of the 'official' terminology).
>>>>> Why even support it at this point?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because that's the format some drivers are available in. Yes, we
>>>> have all sorts of ISV/IHV engineering teams fired up to get them
>>>> converted to IPS, but I'm favoring adoption over purity.
>> Yes, it will be easier for users to get started with OpenSolaris if
>> their rare controller card's driver can be loaded without them having
>> to find an IPS-packaged version of it.
>>
>> If their package behaves and has only new files and doesn't overwrite
>> system files, I believe there should be no problems.
>>>
>>> I figured as much, but it isn't a panacea. Is there going to be an
>>> escape hatch for users stuck with broken SVR4 packages?
>> We can check each file in the package being added, and display a
>> warning if that file already exists on the system. Does this sound
>> reasonable?
>
> That would assuage my fears greatly. There's really no protection in
> place to keep SVR4 packages from butchering files already on the system.
I just confirmed with an IPS team member that if an SVR4 package
contains only files which are orthogonal to those installed via IPS, the
SVR4-packaged files can co-exist with the other files without issues.
So, if the files themselves are good, they should work.
Bad files can come in any kind of package, including IPS, so this isn't
a reason to exclude SVR4 packages.
>
> However, it still leaves users with the issue that they may be stuck
> with a driver that won't be installable regardless of whether or not
> the check succeeds because of the architectural changes that were made
> in the OpenSolaris 200x releases.
What architectural changes are you referring to?
Thanks,
Jack
>
> So is there going to be some sort of warning to users that this is not
> guaranteed to work correctly?
>
> My fear is that if you market this as a stable, supported option, that
> some driver providers may never provide the newer packages or that
> they will be subtly broken and users will never know. The usage of
> SVR4 driver packages with an ips system is a band-aid at solution at best.
>
> I realise that not all packages are created equal, and some will work
> perfectly without any issues, but I doubt that is true of all
> packages. There's also the issue of zones and how these SVR4 packages
> won't be accounted for with them when it comes to driver-related
> utilities (as far as I know, you might want to consult Dan Price, et
> al.).
>
> Cheers,
