Peter Tribble wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Shawn Walker<[email protected]> wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
integrated as opposed to providing other tools to accomplish the same
task.
Shawn - after having all that discussion I was thinking, are you proposing
actually something like:
cat pseudo_code_pkgnodeps.sh
pkgrecive $1 | grep -v "^depend " | pkgsend -n $package--nodeps
pkg install $package--nodeps
More like:
pkgrecv -s <src_repo> -d <dest_repo> --no-deps $1
pkg install pkg://my_publisher/$1
You claim that you want a supportable system. How does telling lies
about the packages help?
It's not "telling lies". Omitting the dependencies of a package is no
different than editing the package. The above process just makes it clear.
By installing a package with incorrect dependencies you've caused just
as much chance of damaging the operation of the system, but the
packaging system is now completely unaware of it and the system is
more likely to be unmaintainable. If you tell the packaging system
to override dependencies, then it's got a record that you've done it and
can do something about it later (even if that's just telling you what a fool
you were).
The assumption that if the dependencies remained intact that the
packaging system could somehow be "more aware" and "maintain" or
"repair" the package's damage is a fallacy at best.
Shifting the removal of dependencies to publication and away from the
packaging system itself makes it "supportable" from a packaging system
perspective. Expecting the packaging system itself to attempt to track
and maintain a broken package graph as you suggest is not practical.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
