On 04/28/10 09:03 AM, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
Hi Keith,
* Keith Mitchell ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to request a review of the following changes to DC and AI
default manifests that change the packages listed from the old
"SUNW" names to the current hierarchical pkg names:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~kemitche/pkg_rename
Some of my comments others have mentioned:
1) # of packages don't match between the old and new manifests.
In the AI SPARC case, the SUNWpd package was included, but that is an
x86-only driver (driver/storage/glm). The glm driver for SPARC is
included in driver/sparc/platform, which was already in the list.
For the text installer case, there were some mismatches in content
between the x86 and SPARC lists, and I wanted to address those
differences while I was working on the manifests. To track this
properly, I filed bug 15786 and will update the commit message to
reference that bug as well.
2) You removed the comment about the ordering for entire, SUNWcs and
SUNWcsd which I understand since pkg fixes that up internally now.
However, I wonder if we shouldn't have some sort of comment that those
three packages are *required* to be in the manifests (since they are).
My thinking is to avoid 'customizers' coming along and removing them in
the name of generating a minimized image and then seeing it not work. I
know the original comment didn't really state this, but I think it did
sort of imply it. This could be a slippery slope, since you need a lot
more than those three packages to get a useful image for any of the
image types, but I think those three packages are at least the minimum
requirements to get started as it were and perhaps deserve a special
mention. What do you think?
I sort of lean towards the slippery slope justification. There's a
desire to define a "minimal install" set of packages; once that's
available, including that meta-package as a base, and indicating that
it's required seems to make more sense. The im-pop stage itself will at
least fail to install the packages if SUNWcs and SUNWcsd is missing, so
it will be obvious that those are needed. "entire" is a bit more
ambiguous, though the remaining comment about appending a build number
to "entire" carries the same pseudo-implication of requirement as the
old one did.
Otherwise, looks good.
Thanks for reviewing!
- Keith
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
