* Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-25 19:48]: > Stephen Hahn wrote: >> * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-24 23:55]: >>> Danek Duvall wrote: >>>> With recursive uninstall working again in my workspace, I've discovered >>>> that even removing a leaf package likely requires a recursive uninstall, >>>> because slim_install has a "required" dependency on it. >>>> >>>> That leads me to believe that slim_install is doing the wrong thing with >>>> its dependencies. They should probably be optional instead of required. >>>> Of course, then you actually need some mechanism to make installation of >>>> slim_install actually install all its dependencies. We have the notion of >>>> a "require optional" policy, but weak support for it. >>>> >>>> My idea was to have a commandline flag for install that would turn on >>>> following optional dependencies just for packages specified on the >>>> commandline (optional dependencies specified further down in the tree would >>>> respect only the image-wide policy). >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, that has the downside that for people actually wanting to >>>> install slim_install or redistributable (or, more pointedly, gcc-dev or >>>> ss-dev, which would naturally have the same change made to them), they'd >>>> have to know to specify the magic flag, or they'd just get a single, >>>> seemingly empty package installed. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>> I would rather not break the convenience or ease of "pkg install ss-dev". >>> >>> New users shouldn't have to know about a special flag or any options to >>> get that to work right. >> >> You're both right. Both incorporating and group packages should have >> optional dependencies, but group packages should have a package tag >> that says, "for install, include optional dependencies", so that users >> (and GUIs) don't need to remember some variable flag. Perhaps >> pkg.policy.install_optional? > > Assuming you're talking about a package specific policy and not a global > one that a user/administrator manages.
Yes, although a similar image-wide one has been discussed. > With most incorporation or group packages, I believe that the user is > inherently committing to installing optional dependencies so policy > controls (or prompts) shouldn't be necessary for them. No: examine pkg:/entire (the ur-incorporation) and contrast with ss-dev. The user's commitments for each of these two classes of package (and the reasons that a distribution producer would introduce them) are different. > We also need to be more informative about what we are installing. As much > really be nice to get prompted if installing a package is going to install > additional dependencies. I don't think the latter is necessary, actually. Dan's still poking around verbose and debug, but I agree about having more output available. - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
