On Tuesday February 21, at 9:11AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 02/21/12 09:06, Chris Quenelle wrote: >> >> On Tuesday February 21, at 8:24AM, Shawn Walker wrote: >> >>> On 02/20/12 22:13, Chris Quenelle wrote: >>>> >>>> On Monday February 20, at 7:39PM, Shawn Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/20/12 15:09, Danek Duvall wrote: >>>>>> Shawn Walker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd also like to suggest we have pkg.vendor to easily identify the >>>>>>> company that produced the package easily (e.g. set name=pkg.vendor >>>>>>> value=Oracle). >>>>>> >>>>>> Eh, I'm not sold on that. >>>>> >>>>> Alternative suggestions welcomed. Liane thought I should add this or an >>>>> equivalent as part of this proposal. >>>>> >>>>> It came up recently with appcert(1) where it would have been nice to be >>>>> able to reliably identify Oracle-provided packages based on metadata. >>>> >>>> In what context does appcert care if a package is supplied by Oracle? >>>> Is it inferring a level of support or stability based on the information? >>>> Oracle produces a diverse set of software all told. >>> >>> One of the primary goals of appcert is to determine whether you are using >>> private interfaces in library files provided by Oracle and report >>> warnings/errors if you are. (Private being determined by how those symbols >>> are declared in the linker data.) >>> >>> Hence, being able to know that a package was supplied by Oracle subjects it >>> to that restriction. >>> >>> Likewise, it allows binaries provided by Oracle to link to private symbols >>> provided by Oracle. >> >> >> Just to make sure I understand. Appcert worries about private interfaces in >> all Oracle software, but not >> private interfaces in non-Oracle software. I guess that makes sense. >> Not sure it's justifies a special piece of metadata by itself. If so, then >> an attribute with "appcert" >> in the name might make more sense. > > Identifying the provider of a package in a generic way seems useful beyond > appcert purely for reporting and/or identification purposes.
In my opinion, Corporate Identity is a very fuzzy concept. I can see the intent behind your idea, but I don't think the data would be worth except as an extended comment. > > -Shawn > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
