I think some other package management systems (such as Debian's apt) have virtual packages to address this need. For instance, in some cases the ssh package was renamed to openssh-client, so ssh is just a virtual package that is satisfied by openssh-client. Perhaps IPS could have virtual package functionality, if it doesn't already? It probably won't address all the issues that have been brought up, but it does address the package dependency issue to an extent.
William Yang > -----Original Message----- > From: desktop-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:desktop-discuss- > bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cameron > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:45 AM > To: laca at Sun.COM > Cc: Luis de Bethencourt; desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [desktop-discuss] what is missing in the OpenSolaris desktop? > > > >>> SUNWgnome-img-editor at 0.5.11,5.11-0.111:20090508T155210Z > >> The package names will be changed "soon" > > > > BTW, there was method in this madness. By the time we first > > integrated GNOME into Solaris, we were already running the 3rd > > window manager (sawmill -> sawfish -> metacity), also, various > > libraries got merged or split all the time (gnome-libs -> libgnome*) > > so we the idea was to simplify our packaging by using stable > > package names that describe the functionality rather than the > > community module name. So {saw{fish,mill},metacity} became > > SUNWgnome-wm and the various platform libs were still in > > SUNWgnome-libs even after they were split in the community. > > There was also a desire to reduce the number of packages delivered > > (CDE was only a handful of packages) because SVr4 packaging > > struggled under too many individual packages (because it had > > to constantly rewrite /var/sadm/install/contents). > > Another motivation for bundling modules into generically named packages > was because normally package names are defined as "Uncommitted" by ARC, > and therefore should go through the EOL process when removed. You > avoid the need to EOL the package name interfaces when you reuse them. > > It also makes things a bit more simple for handling package > dependencies. Using the window manager example, if there are many > packages that depend on the window manager, it is a bit easier to > manage those dependencies if the GNOME window manager package name > doesn't change. It can, for example, cause issues for 3rd party > ISV's if the packages they depend on go through name changes. > > There are pros and cons to either approach. However, I think the > current consensus is that it is better for each package to map to a > single module, and for the package name to map to the module name. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-discuss mailing list > desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org
