Brock Pytlik wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Before this work is done, image versioning need to be implemented.
The changes you've proposed within are essentially a change in image
format and that means that older clients attempting to manipulate an
image created by a newer client won't work quite right or will cause
loss of this additional information.
I don't think I agree that this work should be stalled by image
versioning. Clients without versioning information will plow ahead
regardless and there's nothing we can do about it. Essentially, all this
Right, but since we know that image versioning is an issue, and we may
have to revise this proposed functionality soon after putback, it seems
logical to me to have a versioning framework in place to make it less
painful wherever possible.
would effect is that the set of clients which exist post versioning put
back and pre-user-intent would function correctly. If this goes back
first, that set doesn't exist and thus (by fiat) functions correctly.
That isn't necessarily true, notably in the case of user images.
If others agree that this should stall on that, I'll wait for such a
scheme to integrate, but I don't believe it's necessary to do so. I
think user-intent is a clear win for a large class of users based on
what it will allow us to improve in terms of UI. (I intend to pick up
the group package uninstall once this goes back for examples.) I think
the class of users using multiple versions of pkg to manage is a tiny
set of users. Given that I don't see this introducing a significant
issue for those users, I'm not inclined to hold this work up.
I'm not arguing that this isn't a huge win, but I think image versioning
is a very important bit of functionality that will ultimately help, not
hinder the work proposed here.
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
