To be clear, the reason why I suggested an actual package instead of arbitrary tarball is to ensure that the tarball doesn't overwrite random files in other packages.
Before you say "that might be intentional", I'd like to point out that any files overwritten by that tarball will be overwritten by the package system on the next system update unless the corresponding file actions are marked with preserve=*, in which case the preserve attribute will dictate the behaviour. How configuration management should be done with the new packaging system is something that is still being discussed among various parties. Cheers, On 02/25/10 03:23 PM, Evan Layton wrote: > Hi Clay, > > I agree with Shawn here. This really seems to be more of an IPS issue > for providing the tools needed to easily move the tarball to an IPS > package and provide the documentation on how to do this. > > -evan > > On 2/25/10 12:15 PM, Clay Baenziger wrote: >> Hi Evan, >> One thing which a customer made a strong case for to me at Community >> One, was support for splatting a tarball on a system (as it's a common >> format for a heterogeneous OS shop). It seems it'd be useful to have an >> automated way to do what's suggested in bug 9777 - Need way to publish a >> tarball. This may be out of scope but it seems something which folks >> would have used a post-install script for and might be easy and useful >> to provide. >> Thank you, >> Clay -- Shawn Walker
