Dave Miner wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: >> This is not advisable. IPS needs to be aware of the files on the >> system so that it can effectively manage the system. If you start >> laying bits down in arbitrary places, then when packaging operations >> are performed, those bits may be deleted, moved to another location, etc. >> >> If the issue is with the difficulty in creating packages, the correct >> answer is to improve the publication process. >> >> Note this only applies if you're talking about OpenSolaris-based >> images that use IPS, etc. >> > > Reality is that users will have layered software beyond the OS that will > be in those other formats, no matter how easy IPS publication might be. > Denying the capability to include those in an automated deployment > product won't work.
The package management system cannot adequately manage or account for bits it doesn't know about. For example, what if a directory that contains those unpackaged bits gets changed to a symlink? We have no desire to invent behaviours to deal with files that the system doesn't know about or can't manage. The number of edge cases alone is a nightmare. If the user wants to deliver files to a location that is not managed by the package system, that's fine. If the user wants to customise configuration files that are already delivered by packages; that is likely fine too as long as they marked with preserve=true. Anything else likely needs to be delivered as a package. Otherwise, behaviour cannot be guaranteed. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker
