Stephen Hahn wrote: > 12. license as attribute. The license action is currently needed > because it delivers a payload, but the point on filtering is > important. We need to discuss whether we need pkg.license and > to change "license" to "meta ... type=license ...". > > > 14. Icons. I'll need more use cases/justification of why these need > to be actions. (How would you identify different icon sizes and > types?) My preference is to make this kind of information a URL > tag/attribute, and move responsibility to the client. (Since > every published file has a URL, that's not as big a deal as it might > appear...) > Here are some reasons for wanting to treat icons like a license (with an action):
- offline access. If the image is offline, we'd still like to be able to bring up the GUI and show icons for installed packages. - efficiency. The GUI shouldn't have to make separate web requests to fetch icons for installed packages. (Yes, the icons could be cached). If a set action references a published file URL, what would the URL look like? set name="pkg.icon" value="?" The published files are named with hash values, right? So referencing an icon file that is within the package would be difficult. Could a single meta action cover both licenses and icons? Other meta data that might also fall into this catagory is a change history file for the package. Thanks. Tom _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
