Bart Smaalders wrote: > Ethan Quach 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. >>> >> >> I don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be. 1179 >> simply >> augments an interface provided by libbe (it doesn't break any existing >> usages). >> 1981 modifies pkg(1) to consume that new feature, so we have this version >> dependency. How is this handled normally? >> > > This is easy to handle in the context of upgrade. It is more complicated > for those doing development internally, since we expect to be able to > update > IPS asynchronously from the rest of the system. > > Have you considered just putting libbe into the IPS gate? This would > make this > a lot simpler if you anticipate changing this interface again... >
Haven't considered that. That would definitely resolve the issue. I'll bring it up at the next snap meeting. Tim > - Bart > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
