On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 02:29:45PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote: > Stephen Hahn wrote: > > If that file goes outside the image, it's not really a packaging > > action. So far, I've only heard an attempt to shift such operations > > back into packaging--why aren't these installer layer > > responsibilities? > > I think the real answer is that the systems (SVR4, RPM) that you're > replacing don't *require* an installer layer. Many applications find > that they must add an installer layer, either from laziness or from gaps > in the "packaging" layer, but I personally consider that to be a failure > rather than a model to emulate.
SVR4 provides some functionality that I think the IPS folks consider installer functionality, but we certainly do layer an installer (or N) on top of SVR4... :^/ I don't mind such installer functionality being moved out of the packaging system, as long as there's a generic component that provides some such functionality. > If you're going to require an installer layer, then it is the installer > layer that users should interact with, with the "packaging" layer being > an implementation detail hidden underneath it. I'm not sure I agree. I agree with Bart's note about not running packaged code on a system that's installing into a non-live image. And that must be supported, so it seems like the installer functionality in question must be a post-pkg install step. Again, I don't mind that. We'll see what happens. As long as we get the ping fmri mechanism we can build much of the rest as we need it; user images vis-a-vis GNOME-like things may just have to deal. Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
