> You are aware that Indiana hasn't gone through ARC > yet and is an early > prototype; right?
No. As I wrote before, I purposely stayed out of the whole debacle. I described my experiences, with what I was able to pinpoint as broken in the first 15 minutes of installing "Indiana" without any prior knowledge about it. Had I stayed longer with it, I would have no doubt found many more things that were broken when compared to how SunOS should function and functions. I now have snv_77 on my PC and things are ten order of magnitudes better. As the install finished @01:10 in the morning, I didn't check whether /var/sadm/install/contents is empty or whether `pkgadd` functions, but apart from my account being set to /bin/bash by default, everything else seemed to be SunOS. Certainly further investigation is needed. You have to understand, for me personally, 80:20 is unacceptable; it's either 100% or nothing. Because of the way I am, I went through great pains to ensure that my packages are 100% System V compliant. And when I saw that my System V clean packages were completely uninstallable on something that *should have* guaranteed me forward compatibility, I went through the roof. Not to mention I lost face. It looked like I had no clue what the hell I was doing, perhaps a few hacked-up "packages" here-and-there that all blew up because I didn't know how to package right, like a total and complete clueless, bumbling idiot. > I wasn't aware that Sun had any documentation that > guaranteed root's > home. How does this break backwards compatibility? > Personal > preferences do not count here. In almost every manpage there is a "Stability" attribute. If that attribute is set to "stable", no compatibility breakage is allowed to take place, period. It's guaranteed. And in general, anything that is not explicitly declared as "private/evolving/unstable", is subject to very careful consideration, so as to not break customer's applications. > There was a bug in the version of pkgadd that was > initially released, > an update is available. Look here for instructions to > update: > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/ > 2007-November/003777.html I will study it. Thank you kindly for the pointer. > However, yes, it is likely that there will not be > 100% package > dependency compliance. However, I don't think Sun has > ever guaranteed > that either. That would go against everything that SunOS and SunOS's engineers stand for. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
