On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. Equivalency. Peter T asked "Are you saying that you expect any > two packages with the same unqualified name to be > interchangeable?" Yes, this is the restriction; it allows a > system to have a mix of sufficiently equivalent components from > multiple publishers. Luckily, Mike G give us an example question > to work through: > > Suppose apache.org published the exact same ant release as: > > pkg://opensolaris.org/vendor/apache.org/ant > pkg://blastwave.org/vendor/apache.org/ant > pkg://apache.org/devtools/ant > > Is there any way to for a consumer system to understand that > they are equivalent for the purpose of dependency mapping? > > In the scheme we're proposing, the first two would be > equivalent--and expected to deliver components to the same > location.
Are they equivalent? I would expect them to be different - I would (at the very least) expect the opensolaris.org one to deliver its bits into /usr, and the blastwave one to deliver into /opt/csw. And if I published my own ant package, it would (and very deliberately so) deliver its bits somewhere different from the one from my OS vendor. > The third would not be, because "devtools/ant" and > "ant" aren't the same. (See vendor/ namespace below.) So what about pkg://apache.org/ant or the "automated nethack timebomb" package at pkg://my.own.repository/vendor/foogames.com/ant In the absence of a centralized registry, unqualified names are simply unsafe. (The current scheme with the stock ticker fiction uses qualified names all the time.) That's not to say that user interfaces can't display the unqualified names; that's less of a problem because the interface is capable of supplying more context to differentiate alternatives. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
