Liane Praza wrote: > Jochen wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am working on improving the installation of OpenOffice.org (OOo) on >> OpenSolaris. Particulary I try to make the installation of >> OpenOffice.org extensions work. On Solaris an extension comes with >> its own package and is installed by executing a postinstall script. >> The script executes a tool named unopkg which will be installed as >> part of OOo. If the postrun service is available then the >> installation will be deferred to it. Since IPS does not support >> postinstall scripts, the extensions are not installed on OpenSolaris. >> >> An idea is to use an SMF service which will then do the installation >> of the extensions. The service would be installed as part of the >> office installation. When the service is eventually started it will >> install the extensions and then go into the offline state. This could >> be achieved by defining a dependency on a file. When this file does >> not exist then the dependencie is satified and the service runs. The >> start method would install all extensions and then write this file. >> Then the service would go offline because of the unsatisfied dependency. > > Clever, but, this won't work like you want it to -- file dependencies > aren't dynamic in SMF today, they're evaluated only at certain times, > not at all times that the file is updated. No problem. My favorite solution is now to have the service check that file, before doing any unnecessary action. Please see my earlier reply to Bart.Smaalders. > I also don't think you want to create a service on the system that > will be "offline" all the time when soffice is installed. Actually that was my idea. The service should only be run one time. I thought the status "online" is somewhat misleading. One could have the impression that the service is "working" all the time, which is not true. But well, if it is OK to have the service "online" constantly then its fine :) > > I think there are other solutions to this problem with gnome and the > font stuff, and it'd be good to follow their precedent rather than > creating a new one. I am not familiar with it but I'll ask around.
Thanks, Joachim > >> >> The problem is this flag file. The dependency can be defined so that >> it is satisfied when the file exist or does not. So there are two >> possible scenarios: >> >> a) The file is written later. That is, it was not installed by a pkg. >> Then this file would probably not uninstalled and prevent also a >> couple of folders from being deleted. >> >> b) The file is installed. Deleting the file later would cause pkgchk >> to declare an error. I looked for the v and e attributes (pkgmap), >> but they do not include the case that the file is removed completely. >> >> Have I overlooked something? Is there maybe a possibility to declare >> a flag file in a different way (which I don't know of yet :-) )? > > liane _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
