Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at Sun.COM> [2008-03-06 22:12]: > >> Stephen Hahn wrote: >> >>> Watching this discussion proceed, I now feel that this file should >>> either be removed and a small C API be written to query the packaging >>> metadata (which has all the appropriate information in the convention >>> that the product will use to describe what's installed). I have not >>> seen nearly enough description of what questions are being asked that >>> this file/interface is supposed to answer, and what entities are >>> asking these questions and under what circumstances. >>> >> There was some fairly cryptic stuff in the initial mail William sent, >> but it basically boils down to the installation and software management >> utilities being able to identify and present to the user what's >> installed in the disks and partitions attached to the system. >> > > That would explain a file with a single text string (like "SunOS 5.x, > Distro xxxx, i86pc"). A general name-value store is excessive; as a > bonus, the library API would to a single function. > The name-value store assured that it could be parsed, and made clear how a release was identified, field-for-field.
If you have it as a single string in a file, it would have to conform to a syntax so the release number could be extracted. I have no problem with representing it as a single string, as long as it did not degenerate to something that could not easily be parsed by a program. William > >> I agree that using and querying metadata on a package such as SUNWsolnm >> could provide equivalent results to delivering the file, and I'm fine >> going in that direction. I believe, though, that there's a need to >> continue to provide the file for now in order that the Solaris 10 >> install code can identify our instances. We should probably verify that >> the ZFS install project for Solaris 10 is still influenced by it, >> though; if it isn't then I think that issue would be moot and it could >> be abandoned. >> > > Okay. During this period, it seems best that the file remain > Consolidation Private, with no contracts. I'd even suggest changing > the filename (to "install_label", maybe). > > Thanks > Stephen > >
