Okay, so Jim says either is fine, and you say one is better. So, as far as this case is concerned, the project team will do it your way, and you and Jim can be in violent agreement.
Darren J Moffat wrote: > James Carlson wrote: >> Darren J Moffat writes: >>>> So, do I take the lack of further comment as assent? Is the plan to >>>> simply add a line to exec_attr and forgo the *r package? >>> That is my strong preference but it seems no other ARC members are >>> either listening or have an opinion on this that they wish to share. >> >> I think it's a bit of teak polishing. Either will work fine, neither >> appears to me to have architectural significance, and if the project >> and/or consolidation team have a preference, go for that. > > I think this does have architectural significance which is why I brought > it up. How something is packaged up and split across multiple packages > is something we normally expect to review in ARC, particularly when the > reason for the split is to support zones and diskless clients that > require separate root and usr packages (in the SRV4 package model but > not with IPS). > > As proposed with a root package this case is exposing, as a package > name, something that is essentially an implementation issue of RBAC and > our current requirement to have root and usr packages separate. This > seems a waste of a package unless there will ever be anything else > delivered in a root package by ngrep. > > Like it or not package names are interfaces. > -- blu There are two rules in life: Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
