I think it is important to remember there is disagreement among sysadmins about packaging requirements. In some shops, features that are absolutely required are considered bad in other shops.
I've been in a shop where it was prohibited for sysadmins to install application software themselves. It had to be done by application admins. In such a circumstance, the ability of the package manager to run the install and package scripts as the invoking user was a clear advantage (so the user could install software if they had write permissions on every directory they were touching and install scripts ran as the invoking user). I've spoken with others who felt such capability was a bad thing. Yes, many areas can get clear agreement. The package manager must provide a mechanism to: * Install * Uninstall * Validate files are installed correctly (for some value thereof) * List currently installed packages * Flag some files as configuration (or volatile) files and thus not replaced on upgrade, or validation failure if modified. * Track dependencies for a given package This is just off the top of my head. I have no doubt that most could add more features they would consider required. But there are also features that I expect disagreement on if they even should be in the package manager. I've seen the binary vs source packaging debate before as just one example. (Should the package manager build from source as a part of the package build process or not.) Since some of those features could be seen as outright needs in some shops and very bad features in others, you hopefully see the nature of the problem of defining such. Maybe you could list separately those areas where there is no real dissent, but then flag "here are some features that may or may not be desirable depending on the implementation or shop." On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Aleksey Tsalolikhin <[email protected] > wrote: > Something Adam said on IRC yesterday made me aware of a gap in > professional literature about what sys admins expect (or really, NEED) from > a packaging system. Correct me if I'm mistaken. > > This kind of write-up would enable developers / software vendors to > package better (to our standard). > > The USENIX ATC call for papers is open, if anyone cares to fill that gap: > https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc14/call-for-papers > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
