Volker A. Brandt wrote:
I completely agree. In fact, the way I would have done is:
- don't ship any SVR4 pkg* tools with Nevada/OpenSolaris, ever
SVR4 compatibility is still evolving, but I don't think I would have
gone this route.
- provide tools to semi-automatically convert package
> When Stephen and Bart and company started talking about IPS leveraging
> SMF, I suggested that it might be possible to keep the SVR4 pkg
> pre/post install/remove script idea, add the "usual" SMF
> start/stop/restart bits and automatically put the whole shebang into
> the SMF framework at install
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
>> What's needed is a supported mechanism to make it
>> easy to do it right.
>
> +999
When Stephen and Bart and company started talking about IPS leveraging
SMF, I suggested that it might be possible to
Peter Tribble writes:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Alan Coopersmith
> wrote:
> > So the biggest gap in IPS is the long acknowledged lack of documentation &
> > examples.
>
> That's not going to help - we have plenty of documentation and examples
> for SVR4 scripting. What's needed is a sup
Peter Tribble wrote:
> > So the biggest gap in IPS is the long acknowledged lack of documentation &
> > examples.
>
> That's not going to help - we have plenty of documentation and examples
> for SVR4 scripting. What's needed is a supported mechanism to make it
> easy to do it right.
BTW: A scri
Shawn Walker wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
> > IPS ought to do this right, and is pretty much there because it actually
> > does have the framework to do everything correctly, but claims that
> > scripting is forbidden and therefore doesn't provide the public hooks,
> > again forcing every script
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Alan Coopersmith
wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
>> But that problem arises not because SVR4 packaging supports scripting
>> but because it only does so badly. What's needed is:
>>
>> 1. For the packaging system to fully support scripting as a first-class
>> citizen
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
>>
>> IPS ought to do this right, and is pretty much there because it actually
>> does have the framework to do everything correctly, but claims that
>> scripting is forbidden and therefore doesn't provide the public hook
Peter Tribble wrote:
> But that problem arises not because SVR4 packaging supports scripting
> but because it only does so badly. What's needed is:
>
> 1. For the packaging system to fully support scripting as a first-class
> citizen. Which could include actually providing the most common
> functi
Peter Tribble wrote:
IPS ought to do this right, and is pretty much there because it actually
does have the framework to do everything correctly, but claims that
scripting is forbidden and therefore doesn't provide the public hooks,
again forcing every script writer into carrying the responsibili
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM, John Plocher wrote:
>>> The better question is why someone is doing something
>>> so broken in the first place.
>>
>> There is nothing broken about being able to consistently and repeatably
>> create databases via packages.
>
> If you can do so in a way that relia
>> The better question is why someone is doing something
>> so broken in the first place.
>
> There is nothing broken about being able to consistently and repeatably
> create databases via packages.
If you can do so in a way that reliably does so, then there is no problem.
Unfortunately, given
12 matches
Mail list logo
