Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Ken Erickson wrote: >> Joseph Kowalski wrote: >>> Ken Erickson wrote: >>>> We still need 2 packages, because one will contain the usr/sbin/rmt >>>> binary, /etc/rmt symlink, and we >>>> also still need the (private) shared library. It seems wrong to >>>> put these things in the same package >>>> with star, especially when we will most likely include them in >>>> different product clusters. >>> Nit: don't we need more than two packages because of the root/usr >>> separation? >>> >>> "/usr/sbin/rmt binary, /etc/rmt symlink" >>> >>> Yea, I know its a pain. >>> >>> - jek3 >>> >> dsc just pointed that out also. Per my reply to him, I think we can >> leave the symlink >> in SUNWrcmdr and just add a package dependency there, on our new >> package. >> >> Other existing packages have cross-consolidation dependencies, so >> this is not >> setting a precedent. > > Ewww. > > Since things seem to be headed there anyway, wouldn't it make more > sense to just integrate Joerg's rmt into ON? I think at the end of > the day (after running all the cases that seem to be in the offing), > it will ultimately result in fewer weird cross-consolidation > dependencies. > > -- Garrett I don't agree. The ON build process is very hostile to open source. Having apache in ON for s8 was a nightmare for me.
If you'd like, I can remove the symlink from the ON package, and deliver a root package with just the symlink in it. I'd just like to make some sort of progress and get this done. -ken -- Ken Erickson | kene at Eng.Sun.COM Sun Microsystems, Inc., Solaris OS Engineering | Voice: (847)663-9471 4150 Network Circle MS UITA01 | Cell: (847)530-4603 Santa Clara, CA 95054 | If you want me to read something, don't send it as a StarOffice or HTML attachment.
