On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 06:09:23PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >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.
I don't necessarily think it a bug to allow pkgs with conflicting actions into a repository _as long as_ they are treated as mutually exclusive (including from incorporations). > > - 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. Understood. Until then I think /opt must continue to be the place where SW is delivered that is not integrated into OpenSolaris (with /contrib being a repository of wannabe integrated packages. And when these issues are addressed then the /opt issue can be revisited (though I think I'd still want to see a registry in place before we really kiss /opt goodbye). Nico -- _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
