Shawn Walker wrote:
Tom Mueller (plain-text) wrote:
Here's a picture:
image 1 image 2
| |
pkg(1) pkg(1)
| / \
dev-stream release-stream update-stream
\ / |
pkg.depotd |
| |
repository on-disk-repository
This is a hypothetical case where the dev and release streams are
hosted in the same repository and that an on-disk format of the future
exists to deliver and update stream.
Yes, this is the basic idea.
If this is a correct understanding, would it be also be correct that
with this proposal, bug 7653 need to be changed to talk about streams
rather than repositories?
No, I suspect we'll still have separate repositories for software
delivered by different groups, but each of those repositories may have
multiple streams. For example, the '/contrib' and '/webstack'
repositories need to stay separate, but could possibly offer their own
streams.
So one obvious hole here is that we haven't yet figured out what to do
with software offerings that don't really fit the 'stream' concept. For
example, the stream concept works well with a set of packages that all
move together (e.g. dev, release). But, it doesn't work so well for
packages that merely exist together (e.g. contrib, pending).
The thought so far has been that if a publisher defines a stream, and a
corresponding incorporation package exists that is tagged with that
stream, then that is used to filter package listings and also used to
move between streams. (e.g. if 'dev' 'entire' is installed, then move
to 'release' entire, and follow normal package constraint application).
We could solve the cases such as contrib and pending by saying that if a
corresponding, tagged incorporation doesn't exist for a defined stream,
that the user can't select it or anything else, and it simply exists for
definition. I believe we're still looking for suggestions about how to
deal with that particular aspect.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
