On 04/28/10 11:00 AM, Dave Miner wrote:
On 04/28/10 01:40 PM, Keith Mitchell wrote:
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.
When last I checked, the failure message when SUNWcsd/SUNWcs were not
installed specifically hardly made it obvious that this specific set
of packages needed to be handled specially. Unless the error messages
have become dramatically better, I'd recommend leaving that portion of
the comment in until that issue is addressed.
Dave
I hadn't considered that aspect, but you're correct. I will defer the
fixing of that bug (and update it to be dependent on the pkg bug).
- Keith
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
