T.J. Yang wrote: >> From: Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at Sun.COM> >> To: "T.J. Yang" <tj_yang at hotmail.com> >> CC: casper.dik at Sun.COM, install-discuss at opensolaris.org >> Subject: Re: [install-discuss] Re: Solaris installation strategy >> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:18:29 -0500 >> >> T.J. Yang wrote: >>>> From: Casper.Dik at Sun.COM >> ... >>>> But does it use "pkgadd" and the Solaris native package database? >>> Yes. TWW's pkg-inst when running on Solaris will call up pkgadd to do the >>> installation so the package registry will be inserted into /var/sadm/pkg. >>> pkg-rm will call up pkgrm and pkg-info will call up pkginfo. >>> >>> The most beautiful part is that I only need to know these three same >>> commands (pkg-inst,pkg-rm and pkg-info) for package management work across >>> most Unix platforms. A need that Sun don't care about but IT >>> sysadm/manager will appreciate. >>> >> I think we'd be open to working to a cross-platform package management >> interface standard, but we can't do it in a vacuum. > > The idea I am proposing to OpenSolaris community is to use TWW HPMS > to create/manage opensolaris SVR4 packages. > There is no extra package mangement interfaces need to be invented. > The gaps between modern PMS and SVR4 packages like central package > respository, > package auto install upon dependency are already filled when using TWW HPMS > on top of SVR4 pkgadd. > > If you look at TWW's supported OS platform (R1),you will find there is not > much other OS platforms are not supported.
One of the issues, to me, is that a layered solution such as TWW's is providing functionality at the wrong level - they work around the deficiencies in pkgadd by adding more layers, when what's likely needed is to factor that functionality into the base packaging system. That's one of the reasons Solaris patches are ugly, slow and sometimes unreliable: there's functionality implemented at the patch level that should have been extensions to the packages. Architecturally, I'm skeptical. >> Honestly, I don't have any feedback from customers (other than TJ) saying >> that this is something they really want us to do. > > > I think you are right on this, not many people complain about outdated > SVR4 packagement system. I guess they just accept the fact and write > their scripts to auotmate the package install and removal processess. > Oh, they complain plenty. > But if you ask your customers if they need package repository support > and package auto install by dependency. I believe they will say yes. > Yes, they do; that's why those are pointed out as requirements in the strategy document I posted. That's different than a requirement that we provide a package management interface that works on systems other than OpenSolaris, though. That's the requirement nobody's stated in any of our other research. It might be attractive, so I don't dismiss the possibility, but it's not clear there's gain for OpenSolaris, or Solaris the product, in doing so. > please see R3, another example to illustrate benifits of TWW HPMS tools. > One can do a "sb opensolaris.sb" command to automate opensolaris build > process. > (granted same functionality can be achieved by shell script or a makefile). > You should take that over to the tools community. Might grab some interest; it's similar to other recipe-based build systems I've seen. > Lastly, Not adopting TWW HPMS is understandable. but please don't switch > to other PMS(like openpkg,apt-get etc). Same with your above statement, > I have no bandwidth to handle two different PMS and their packages at the > same time. > I don't know what will be decided, but it will certainly be posted here for discussion beforehand. Dave
