Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:37:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
a b wrote:
[snip]
I won't debate the merits, etc. of this with your nor comment on what
should or should not be done architecturally as that isn't my
responsibility. I'll just simply say that I see no issue with packaging
for /usr as most packages are moving towards, and that I believe most
users will expect that.
I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree. The
namespace issues are important. At the very least IPS needs to deal
sanely with:
- two or more pkgs in one repository with actions
I assume you mean actions which overlap? This may or may not be an
issue, depending on what packages a user wants to install. It would be
nice if we could (optionally) catch this at publication time and that's
something we may work towards in the future. Of course, this doesn't
solve the problem of third party software delivering conflicting
actions, but at least we could be self-consistent.
- a user trying to install one or more pkgs whose actions would
conflict with those a pkg that's already installed
Known bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3822
One thing that's holding this up is that there are issues with the
current nevada pacakges delivering conflicts (see the dependent bugs of
that bug). Until we deliver a self-consistent set of packages, IPS is
somewhat constrained on what we can do.
Brock
Additionally we could use a namespace registry (preferably one that
could be used by Linux distros too). Even then we'd need rules as to
whether new conflicts can be created, and conflict resolution. E.g.,
what happens if a project wants to deliver /bin/foo directly with
OpenSolaris, via a consolidation, and a third-party has already
registered that name?
Nico
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
