On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, John Plocher wrote: > >> In a sense this is the "gentoo" model, applied to the whole >> consolidation; it is no longer acceptable to /just/ update a single >> subcomponent, the whole wad needs to be in sync. > > Choice #5: Explicitely list the dependencies in our packages, make our > tools figure out what is compatible based on dependencies. I.e. the > RedHat/Debian RPM/Deb model.
I can't speak authoritively about reliability of dependency architectures. But there are apparenly widely felt, impactful (in customer-land too) flaws in the Debian/Ubuntu architecture that (if true), should either a.) be carefully scrutinzed before being allowed into Nevada, or b.) Be put on trial first via another SX-like mechanism (e.g. officially endorsing the Belenix distro and doing it there.) Eric > > I believe that's what our marketing has found that our customers want. I > know for a fact that the lack of such has ruled out Solaris for one > highish-profile web-server deployment.. > > IMHO we really need to stop dealing implicitely with dependency > resolution by dint of big wads... > > regards, > -- > Paul Jakma, > Solaris Networking > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/quagga tel: EMEA x19190 / +353 1 819 9190 >
