On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net> wrote: > > 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.
I'm fairly certain you're going to be able to do this. There is a variety of tools or other functionality that can accomplish this task. I would encourage you to discuss your concerns on the pkg-discuss mailing list. > > > 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. I still think it should be discussed on pkg-discuss first. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
