James Carlson wrote: > Casper.Dik at Sun.COM writes: > >>The miniroot is build by install the package SUNWsibi on top of >>the already installed packages. > > [...] > >>*OR* we need to restructure the miniroot such that it boots without >>having to replace any files. > > > That's the architecturally correct answer. The current design of > SUNWsibi violates the packaging standards (PSARC 1991/061), lacks the > required interface contracts for the private bits it modifies, and is > generally not well-designed. > > This particular accident is a direct result of not maintaining our own > standards, and that needs to be fixed, regardless of the possibility > of a workaround (shipping SUNWsibi to be forcibly installed after any > patch) for this one failure. > > > (Skeptics of the process sometimes ask me for examples of instances > where ARC review is both required and would help avoid expensive > problems down the road. I think this one would make a good entry.) >
I was not aware of this particular mess. For now I'm not too convinced of how to fix this in the short term ( at least S10 time anyway ), ie customers applying patches such as the KU to their miniroot. I guess we could include some rev of SUNWsibi, but this is ugly and as SUNWsibi is different from FCS to 1/06 and again in U3, not clear what implications this would have. I suggest a bug/RFE to cover the whole implementation of SUNWsibi to cover the wider picture, I can log that, but we need to agree some short term fix/hack for now as well. ( either that or not miniroot patching for KU's, which is not good ) Enda
