On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 02:40:44PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > Unless you have a flag, "this package did something that is not reversible", > the packaging system will then be implicitly making a claim "this is > reversible", when it is not. A false positive, if you will. > Is/Does IPS have such a flag to prevent this false positive?
I claim that this service is not run under the purview of the packaging system, and thus the packaging system is not responsible for what it does, nor ensuring that it's reversible. I can't control what you do to your system after you've installed it -- that's entirely up to the software that you've installed, and what you yourself decide to do. > > Do you have a real-life example in mind for this -- mysql or postgres > > or a specific webapp? > > yes. twiki, i think it was. I believe there are others. Does the blastwave package for twiki (what's the name?) have this kind of postinstall script? > You're not thinking in true database terms. > Install process for a database driven application, may require dba type > perms, to create a schema. > The running app, may populate that schema with assorted data, but may not > have permission to alter the schema itself. > > In doing a transition to a newer version, it may be required to alter the > database schema. This requires higher privs than are required in normal > running of the application. So you're asserting that the packaging system, running as root, or under the Software Administration profile, is going to have the necessary dba perms, passwords, etc? > It seems like you are saying is, "I dont care what is most useful to the > users; this is what is synthetically 'clean' to my viewpoint, and that's > what matters to me". I'm saying that you've not come close to convincing me that my viewpoint won't be more useful to users than what you're proposing. Feel free to keep trying -- or not -- if you choose, but you'll more likely to make progress if you give concrete, real-world examples where the methodology we've been discussing breaks down, or where running arbitrary scripts during installation is materially and substantially an improvement over doing so in a separate context. And, to be clear, I *am* starting with the premise that packaging should be about nothing more than putting bits on disk, with anything more needing justification. Starting with a system that contains everything and justifying the removal of each piece is, IMO, the wrong way of attacking the problem. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
