Hi Shawn, On 16/03/2012 20:12, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 03/16/12 05:38, Darren Kenny wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Could I please get a code review for the following bug and RFE: >> >> 7152537 AI fails to install packages with licenses using must-display=true >> and not must-accept=true >> >> 7145997 noinstall element should be implemented as reject for >> pkg transfer > > It may be too late to change this, but 'noinstall' doesn't exactly roll > off the tongue. Why was this term used instead of 'reject'?
At the time that the DTD was first envisaged, the term 'reject' wasn't in use by pkg. Other than that, I've no idea why noinstall was used originally. We could look at a bug to change it at a later date if the DTD is being reved anyway - but otherwise we are pretty much stuck with it, even revving it could actually present reason for maintaining support for both names... > > I also wonder about the explanation of why you would use 'noinstall' > over 'uninstall'. > > Realistically, any package you can 'uninstall' after installation could > also have been rejected using 'nonistall' at the beginning. While that is true, if the original install is done as an IPS install, but that may not always be the case. For example, in the GUI/Text installers they do a CPIO install and then some cleanup, uninstalling some install IPS packages - but also this could (theoretically, under specific circumstances) be done by a customer too in AI since we also support other transfer types... And, we're considering adding other transfer types too which may further impact this. > > The only use for 'uninstall' that I can currently think of would be to > remove a package with group dependencies or some other package that was > only installed because of the packages it would require. Which is a valid use-case I think for developers at least... Thanks, Darren. _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
