Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Jordan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-16 16:58]: >> Shawn Walker wrote: >>> * Packages cannot depend on it (meaning they *must* pre-define >>> defaults for all options) >> What's the default hostname? > > Install question. > >> What's the default system private key? >> What's the default HTTP proxy? >> Which management server should my management proxy connect to? >> ... et cetera. > > These are all site-wide policies, and certainly not product defaults.
Right. Shawn said "must predefine defaults for all options"; I was giving examples of options for which there was no reasonable default. > I don't understand why you would expect the packaging system to > manipulate them as a base operation; I could understand coming up with > a specific package or packages to deliver files that might express > them. First, note that the subject line is "configuration subsystem", something that runs after the files are laid down and allows the user to do some first-time configuration. That has *not* been my focus in this discussion; my focus has been on the non-interactive "glue" configuration that binds components together without user interaction required. The key question is what a "packaging system" is. Is it wget+unzip+rm, with frills? Is it a soup-to-nuts software management subsystem? rpm and pkgadd are somewhere in the middle. What you seem to be defining is wget+unzip+rm, with frills. What I need is something that is at least not worse than what I have now (pkgadd and rpm). (OK, maybe "need" isn't the right word. I could survive with unzip if I had to, but I wouldn't like it.) What I think the world needs is a soup-to-nuts software management subsystem. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
