On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:27:51AM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > I personally would be horrified to see the pkg client get tied into a > > configuration system directly.
I think you've misunderstood what's being asked for, and you've not acknowledged the fact that there's at least some things that we know need post-install configuration and the developers of packaging for those things will find ways to arrange for those post-install actions. The choice is: a standard way or a hodge-podge. I understand that we can't build Rome in one day, plus I'm not contributing code which probably means I've no right to demand answers, so: let's drop the subject. Soon I'll be at least a consumer of IPS as a developer of packages, and then I think I'll be able to push issues of this sort, and hopefully contribute code. > > It needs to be a separate tool. > > Yes and no. They need to be part of the same picture. Exactly. It can be a separate tool. I have no objection to that, provided that there's a standard tool that all package developers who need it can use, and which provides a useful API and UI. Jordan, This thread has dragged on and been inconclusive. I think the best thing to do here is let this issue drop, and when either you or I or someone else needs this, then we can develop it and contribute it. Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
