On 01/13/10 23:12, Milan Jurik wrote: >> In the early phases of the EMI project, we actually considered making >> /var/svc/manifest a symlink. The feedback that we received, however, >> indicated that it would no play well with SVR4 packaging. See >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/2008-April/004111.html. >> We also received indications that the symlink would not play well with >> pkg(5), but I don't have any emails that I can refer you to for that. >> > > But that is problem of packaging system (both of them), which should be > fixed to deal with such situations (is it the first time when we are > doing such change on filesystem hierarchy?). Why should we introduce > such misleading "duplication" of places? Any benefit to have 2 places? > > Best regards, > > Milan > > > > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org
The issue is that if some package treat /var/svc/manifest as a symlink, and others as a directory, we'll end up w/ problems. The packaging system cannot deal with discordant views of the file system hierarchy in a rational fashion. We can always fix the packages in the wos, but third parties may deliver SMF manifests to a directory named /var/svc/manifest for years. It's best that we leave it there to prevent problems. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
