Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Ken Erickson wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Acknowledged. I don't care all that much at the end of the day. > Whatever makes the most sense -- be it package dependency, or moving the > link to a new package, or whatever (heck leave the symlink around but > "don't" make the dependency is at least one possible solution, though I > guess its probably at least as "dirty" as any of the others. Although > that is sounding better and better.) > > Just out of curiosity, how critical is that symlink in /etc? I'm pretty > sure we've documented it as /usr/sbin for ~forever. Is there still BSD > compatibility code out there that needs it? Maybe we should just nuke > it. One more executable removed from /etc *has* to be a worthy side > effect. > > If it's really a BSD thing, is there a BSD compatibility package that it could be moved to?
-Kyle > -- Garrett > >> -ken >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080311/43f05195/attachment.html>
