Didn't we have this very same coexistence conversation the first time
'round? :-)
The use case of the user installing gcc 4.3.2 "yesterday", installing
gcc 4.3.3 "today", and then uninstalling gcc 4.3.2 "tomorrow" is going
to be a reasonably common upgrade path; whatever causes the "havoc to
both the files and IPS database" is a bug and must be fixed. Are we
sure this is only a GCC project bug, or is there a related IPS problem
(user provided packages that cause havoc with the IPS system is a
recipe for disaster)?
It sounds like there are two related, but independent "projects" here:
1) Fix/update the already deployed gcc 4.3.2 packages in the IPS
repo to allow the use
case above, and
2) Release a new set of gcc 4.3.3 packages. Assuming, of course,
that these
packages won't have the upgrade bug that slipped past in
4.3.2's original release.
Can you point out where the topic of version flexibility, both in the
"co-installed" and "which is the default" areas, is addressed in the
project's packaging design and/or packaging architecture specs? In
particular, I am looking for the architecture (or design pattern...)
that you are following for choosing which compiler version is invoked
via "/usr/bin/gcc" - Is it "last package installed", "first...", some
special per-version "make me the default" package, or something else?
-John
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM, George Vasick <George.Vasick at sun.com> wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>>
>> George Vasick wrote:
>>>
>>> We released 4.3.2 in OpenSolaris 2009.06. ?We have to update 4.3.2 in
>>> order to release 4.3.3 to avoid duplicate pathnames between the packages.
>>
>> The case specified 4.3.2 as a new delivery, not something already
>> provided.
>
> Sorry about that. ?Here is a new section 4.10 clarifying the situation:
>
> ? ?4.10. Packaging & Delivery:
> ? ? ? ?Package ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Status
> ? ? ? ?======= ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ======
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcc432 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Modified
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcc433 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgccdoc ? ? ? ? ? ? ?New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibgcc1 ? ? ? ? ?New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibgfortran3 ? ? New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibgomp1 ? ? ? ? New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibobjc2 ? ? ? ? New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibssp0 ? ? ? ? ?New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgcclibstdc6 ? ? ? ? New
> ? ? ? ?SUNWgccruntime432 ? ? ? Deleted
>
>> Still, it seems wasteful to ship both, instead of replacing 4.3.2 with
>> 4.3.3
>> and telling developers who want to stay on 4.3.2 to not upgrade their
>> packages,
>> but that probably depends on IPS/OpenSolaris packaging changes to allow
>> those
>> to be upgraded separately from the WOS build.
>
> According to my to my IPS contact, installing the new 433 packages over an
> existing 432 install would go through just fine with no warnings or errors.
> ?Uninstall is another story with all kinds of havoc to both the files and
> IPS database. ?There were two choices. ?We could update the 432 packages to
> be empty or modify their contents to allow coexistence. ?In either case, the
> 432 packages require an update.
