On 05/22/12 16:47, Brock Pytlik wrote:
On 05/22/12 16:15, Tim Foster wrote:
On 05/23/12 10:10 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Well, certainly it's a bad idea for the *server* to use p5i information
to do that, but as a general mechanism for moving transport
configuration from system to the next, I think it's desirable.
Ok, I'll see if I can dig up that work, and put it back in.
I'd suggest this be a separate put back. I can't see much of a reason
that p5i support must be there when the rest of this lands and I'd like
more time to think about the security and proper UI around when pkg
should and shouldn't respect a proxy set in a p5i file. We can say "a
server shouldn't put proxy into a p5i file", but once the slot for the
info is there, a confused publisher might do just such a thing.
I wasn't suggesting that the .p5i changes needed to be part of this
putback; I was merely responding to the inquiry as to how they might be
useful.
I agree with Brock that they could be implemented later; especially as
the CLI still doesn't support them directly.
I disagree with his response to the other question though.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
