Jean McCormack wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> Jean McCormack wrote: >>> Glenn Lagasse wrote: >>>> My point is that SUNWfirefox is going to be installed off the liveCD. >>>> Why would we then want to pull it from IPS because it's part of a >>>> collection as well? Are we somehow going to have logic that says >>>> "SUNWfirefox is already going to be installed because it's part of the >>>> liveCD load so don't pull it from IPS even though it's specified in the >>>> Development collection"? That seems unweildy to me. Keeping track of >>>> what's provided on the liveCD vs having to be pulled from IPS seems >>>> untenable long term imo. >>>> >>>> I suppose we could just not care about duplicate package installation >>>> (once from liveCD and then again via a collection and IPS) but I wonder >>>> if we might not run in to problems down the road. For instance, what >>>> happens if a liveCD specific customization is done to a package during >>>> image creation which is then overwritten because the package is >>>> 're-installed' from IPS as part of a collection? Somewhat hypothetical >>>> but illustrates my point. >>>> >>> I see your concern. Of course we do have that problem now. If we do a >>> live >>> CD customization and later the person does an update, the package >>> will get overwritten. >>> >>> As for overwriting, it will only get overwritten if the IPS download >>> is a later rev than >>> the liveCD version. Otherwise IPS knows not to update the package, >>> correct? Of course that >>> could very well happen. >> Even if that software package defined in the collection >> is a later rev that what was cpio'ed over from the liveCD, >> installing that collection should still follow pkg's policy. >> Installing that collection ultimately leads to said software >> package being "updated" on the installed system. Files >> that have been customized (e.g. /etc/app.conf) don't get >> overwritten via an update. >> >> Having said that, it wasn't clear to me in your original >> posting that we would be allowing both cpio install and >> collection selection simultaneously. Our chat with Glynn >> resulted in that this wasn't explicitly a requirement; >> providing a choice of either was sufficient. Have we >> decided otherwise? > Part of this discussion is to make a definite decision. Discussion with > both Ginnie and Sanjay > led to the "install the liveCD bits in the normal (cpio) way and then > customize using IPS" > proposal. This allows a base set of bits to be installed quickly and yet > the user can also customize their > software. >
This seems rather unnecessarily complex. I'd encourage keeping it simple to start with, and optimize later. Dave
