Bart Smaalders wrote: > Tim Knitter wrote: >> >> >> Bart Smaalders wrote: >>> Tim Knitter wrote: >>>> Bart and all, >>>> >>>> I just fixed 1981 (not yet integrated) in the IPS gate and it >>>> requires 1179 in the slim gate. If the fix for 1179 doesn't >>> > exist on the system and the fix for 1981 does, then any failed pkg >>> > install/uninstall operation will fail to create a clone of the image. >>> > I'm wondering how best to handle this dependency for opensolaris. Can >>> > both the SUNWipkg and SUNWinstall-libs be updated at the same time? >>> > If so is there a mechanism in place to do it? >>> >>> I'm confused (as usual). Today, pkg install/uninstall doesn't create >>> a clone. Do you mean pkg update-image? >>> >> >> pkg install/uninstall creates a clone in the event of a failed >> operation on the live image. See >> src/modules/client/bootenv.py:restore_install_uninstall(). Actually >> that is orthogonal to the main issue of the dependency that 1981 will >> have on libbe, if integrated. And I suspect this won't be the first >> fix that will impose a pkg -> libbe dependency since libbe and pkg are >> in bed with one another now. ;-) The question is, how can we resolve >> this dependency going forward without breaking pkg(1)? Always deliver >> SUNWinstall-libs and SUNWipkg together? Then there is the issue before >> an opensolaris release or update. A system could have newer pkg bits >> then libbe bits. Probably a secondary issue resolved by installing the >> latest SUNWinstall-libs pkg but could pose issues for developers. > > > Ok - > > What else uses libbe? >
Nothing outside of the slim source gate other than pkg(1). Tim > - Bart > > > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
