On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Jens Elkner wrote: > 'James Carlson wrote:' >> >> Jens Elkner writes: >>> Is anybody able to explain, why SUNWcsl has no dependency on SUNWsasl >>> defined? >> >> What "SUNWsasl"? Are you referring to the Sun One Directory Server? > > Ooops, sorry - SUNWlibsasl of course! > >>> Actually, if one pkgrm SUNWsasl (because unusable wrt. sendmail - one has >>> to build and install the real cyrus-sasl), the user gets no warning (not a >>> single Sol10/Nevada package has a P SUNWsasl). But after the removal, >>> nobody is able to login, because the pam stuff depends on libldap.* >>> (doesn't matter, whether one uses ldap maps or not), which in turn depends >>> on libsasl. >> >> libsasl comes from SUNWlibsasl on Solaris, and it's in SUNWCmreq (the >> "Minimal Core System Support" metacluster), which means that it >> _cannot_ be removed from a supported system and thus requires no >> explicit dependencies. > > Unfortunately the running system has no idea wrt. to clusters. And no-one > should expect an user/admin to inspect the .clustertoc, before he removes > a from the running system as unused reported package. > Compared with Linux, Solaris seems still to live in the stoneage: > The package system provides the opportunity to record dependencies, > but it seems to be rarely used (perhaps because the developer think, > the initial install program needs to know about the deps, only)...
I have to agree with Jens here - our packaging dependancies could really use some work (it's been a nit of mine since before I started working at Sun... so it's not a new problem... ) The packaging utilities need to prevent our users from hurting themselves this way, and the only way is to set up correct packaging dependancies. >> If you're seeing a problem with sendmail, then please file a bug on >> it. > > 6211461, 6481399, 4973191 , 6255915 etc. , just search the bug db for > sasl sendmail saslauthd 6255915 is closed as "not a defect" 4973191 is marked "no resources available", so it's not that we don't want to fix it... and 6481399 seems to be a duplicate of 6481399 (so I'm assuming the no resources available is applicable here). > So, I guess its a waist of time, to file another one, which gets probably > ignored again. Sometimes I realy have the feeling, that Solaris developer > live in their own world and do not really know, what customers need. > Every little Linux-vendor seems to do a much better job wrt. software > assembly/packaging, than SUN does ... :-((( it sounds like you're seeing a different bug than what any of the above describe. Please do file it. Valerie -- Valerie Bubb, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025. 650-786-0461
