> So now we have some new binaries, some data files > that have not changed, > some binaries that are the same again. > > Patch or Package ?
The documentation clearly states that a patch must never deliver new functionality. If new functionlity is delivered, it must be performed via a new revision of the package. > The current method we employ is to remove the whole > collection and use the > standards compliant SVR4 tools to achieve this. Then > install the new > package entirely and then move on. > > The question on the table that needs to be looked at > would be "is this > optimal or even reasonable?" You guys (Blastwave) are numero uno. The #1 freeware organization for Solaris. No questions asked. But you have some pretty big problems. Your biggest problem is not whether to patch or package, the docs are clear on that. The problems you (as a group) have is that you're not fully System V compliant, i.e. you deliver everything under one directory, /opt/csw/, rather than following the System V spec. And that's a big problem in my book, an architectural one. Yes you've said a million times it was done "to keep everything in one place" and "for NFS mount reasons", but that doesn't cut it. Which is why guys like me have to roll out their own software stack. And it's a real shame that it has to be done twice because of that. The second problem is that no proper integration with Solaris takes place. For instance, there is no consistent class framework that behaves in a predictable way. "Will work out of the box" automation is minimal, if it even exists. Startup scripts don't think all the scenarios through, and are very minimal. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
