Here's the part on package namespace handling. (These drafts were checked in as c0af9237a26a.) I'd like to get feedback on this document as well, before we start coming up with explicit categories, etc. It's probably worth mentioning that I could have written much more, but then the discussion might be prematurely narrowed...
- Stephen ---- | PSARC/2008/190 | pkg(5): image packaging system | PACKAGES AND GROUPS | 1. Definitions | To be consistent with the system, following the introduction of the | fault management architecture, each package is named by an FMRI in | the "pkg:" scheme. That is, we have | pkg://authority/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | The authority is generally expected to be a forward or reverse | domain name identifying the publisher from which a package can be | retrieved. Authorities which cannot be determined to be a domain | name are legitimate, but optional functionality, like automatic | server discovery for a particular authority, may fail to work. | In the examples that follow, we use "opensolaris.org" as a generic | authority. | The pkg_name, like service names, can be split into a category, | subcategories, and a basename. This namespace might be populated | with "manifest" and other metadata endpoints, as well as the SHA-1 | names of the package's included files. (Although the direct access | to properties of the svc FMRI scheme has been rarely used.) | A "group package" is a package that depends upon (minimum versions | of) other packages, as well as optionally delivering files or other | actions. An "incorporation" is a group package that places forward | constraints upon the versions of the packages it depends upon, which | restricts the interval of valid package versions to one the author | of the incorporation believes functional. | 2. Namespace | 2.1. Single namespace, separate authorities | The primary design point of the package namespace is to allow | multiple package producers to co-exist in a single namespace, so | that images can switch between equivalent components from different | producers. | 2.2. Domain-name-based escape | | At any point in the category hierarchy, a safe namespace can be | created by using the forward or reverse domain name, either as a | subcategory or as a comma-led prefix to a subcategory or package | base name. (This scheme is similar to FMRI namespace escapes in | smf(5), although we are eliminating use of stock symbol prefixes.) | | For instance, when example.com wishes to publish the "whiskers" | package without reference to a larger namespace convention it can | use any of the following examples | | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../example.com/whiskers | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../com.example/whiskers | | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../example.com,whiskers | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../com.example,whiskers | | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../example.com,software/whiskers | pkg://opensolaris.org/.../com.example,software/whiskers | | and so forth. | | 2.2. Locally reserved namespace | | The top-level "site" category is reserved for use by the entity that | administrates the server. Neither the organizations producing the | operating system nor those providing additional software components | may use the site category. | | The top-level "vendor" category is reserved for use by organizations | providing additional. The leading subcategory must be a domain. | That is, if example.com wishes to publish the "whiskers" package in | the vendor category, it would use a package name like | | pkg://opensolaris.org/vendor/example.com/whiskers | | 2.3. Additional reserved namespace | | The top-level "cluster", "feature", "group", "metacluster", and | "service" categories are all reserved for future use. | | Inception note: some or all of these reservations may be eliminated | or reduced when the single namespace convention reaches its final | form. | | 2.4. Single namespace conventions | | 2.4.1. Discussion | | Packaging systems and distributions appear to have explicit | categories, subcategories, and potentially larger groups; some | distributions have explicit fields for these values, others use | tagging or multi-valued fields, which allows them to classify | certain packages multiply. For the FMRI namespace case, the system | is similar to a packaging system with multiple, single-valued, | category fields. | | There appear to be two standard approaches to categorizing packages: | | 1. By what primary class of thing a package delivers. | | 2. By what area of functionality a package's contents address. | | In the first approach, we get strict top-level categories like | "application", "driver", "library", and "system" or "kernel", as | well as potentially overlapping categories like "utility" and | "tool". Use of the leading subcategory is limited, and generally | given to the subsystem involved. A relatively detailed worked | example of the X11 subsystem under this scheme is given in | | http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2008-February/001838.html | | In the second, we would also see categories like these, but leading | subcategory is much more likely to classify according to | functionality, so that we would see "application/mail", | "application/web", "application/compiler", and so forth. Most | network packaging systems appear to classify in this fashion. | | An appealing variation of the second form is to rotate all of the | non-"application" packages under a "system" mega-category, such that | all of the leaf packages (with the possible exception of device | drivers) are exposed at the category level. Table 1 shows some | example transformations under this scheme. | | FROM TO | application/web/firefox web/firefox | application/compiler/gcc4 compiler/gcc4 | library/c system/library/c | kernel/generic system/kernel/generic | | Table 1: Rotating non-application categories under system. | | -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
