On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:07PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:34:38AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:30:32PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The IPS/pkg repository and associated packaging system must
> > > > > have the following abilities:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. It must allow packages to be tagged with an "expectation
> > > > > level" taken from the (evolving) set of
> > > > > [Sandbox, Prototype, Experimental, Preferred, Core]
> > > > > 2. It must treat these expectation levels as namespace
> > > > > qualifiers, such that packages of the same name may
> > > > > coexist in a repository with different expectation levels
> > > > > 3. It must allow the user to select which expectation
> > > > > level(s) to choose packages from for installation
> > >
> > > I'm rather uncomfortable with the attempts here to seemingly codify
> > > "as a rule", the capabilities of a software product (ips in this
> > > case).
> >
> > So design of the system is undesirable?
> >
> >
> > > > 4. It must allow for some mechanism for a build to be
> > > > reproduced exactly at any given future time, whether
> > > > that be explicit versioning and infinite retention,
> > > > or preferably just allowing users to clone and retain
> > > > versioned repositories on local optical media as well
> > > > as on "the network".
> > > >
> > > > The idea that everything I need to rebuild a system may not be
> > available
> > > > is worrying.
> > >
> > > As nice as that would be to have, I don't think it is a realistic
> > requirement.
> >
> > I think you've misunderstood me. Bart Smaalders suggested that most of
> > what comes with Solaris now may now longer be provided on optical media,
> > but rather would be delivered from the network repository. Given that
> > statement, I am concerned that should I need to build a new system to
> > match a system I already have installed that I should be able to do so.
>
> I misunderstood what you meant by "rebuild" -- I thought you meant
> *recompile* all the software on the system :-)
>
> Imaging an entire system for re-deployment elsewhere seems outside the
> realm of the packaging system and better suited to distribution
> construction or other tools.
I don't wish to have to roll my own distribution of Solaris Next. I
want to use the Sun supported one. I'm not even talking about imaging a
system.
Currently, I can get a Solaris 10 DVD and install everything on it. I
can then do the same thing at any later point and get a system that
looks exactly the same. I *must* be able to do that with Solaris Next
as well, or I will be looking for a different UNIX.
> > If there isn't a way to tell that packaging system to get the same bits
> > that it got yesterday again, then it is of no use.
>
> Do you mean literally, "get the same bits you got yesterday?" As in,
> download exactly the same packages you downloaded yesterday, again?
If installing from the repository is the only way to get the packages,
then absolutely yes.
> > We're talking in the context of Solaris Next, as I understand it. If
> > the repository software is unable to deliver the functionality, then Sun
> > will likely find it hard to provide no matter how much I pay them.
>
> I'm still confused as to why software requirements are being proposed
> to ARC instead of pkg-discuss.
The ARC want to talk about it is a good enough reason for me.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/arc-discuss/attachments/20080416/48062cf6/attachment.bin>
