Erwin T Tsaur wrote: > On 04/23/09 11:26, Gary Winiger wrote: >>>>> My recollection from 2005/232 was there was a discussion >>>>> about non-standard install places. How was that resolved? >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't part of that discussion back then. Not sure what that >>>>> would be about. >>>>> >>>> As the project is largely relying on that case with was about >>>> an unbundled integration, it seems to me appropriate for the >>>> project team to review the basis of this case and ensure that >>>> the issues that were raised there are resolved now. >>>> Saying something is not shipped with the WOS, but as an unbundled >>>> with a limited set of users leads to different packaging and >>>> installation that something shipping with the WOS. Since a >>>> patch binding has been requested, the WOS in this case is >>>> S10. >>>> >>> Yes good point. There is another discussion going on about this >>> whole packaging issue. It is definitely being scrutinized as the >>> requesters for this tool all have their own requirements and such. >>> >> >> If this is still being discussed, isn't the case premature? >> Shouldn't this case be in waiting need spec until all relevant >> peripheral discussions have completed? >> >> > no.. packaging issues are separate and there are many ways to do this. > As long as it is OK to for pcitool to be released in some sort of > package or bundled somehow etc.. then we are set.
Not it is not separate it is very much part of the architecture review. Particularly given that where something is installed and how it is packaged (ie does it need a root and usr package) is dependent on wither or not it is bundled into the WOS or an unbundled separate download. The names of the packages are interfaces and should be included in the ARC case expect where it is obvious (eg a case adding a new API to libc it is obvious what package that is in, but a case adding a new cli and/or daemon or library needs to declare the packaging). -- Darren J Moffat
