On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:37:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > a b wrote: > >It appears that these architectural issue have not been thought throughly. > > The OpenSolaris distribution, as you are aware, is experimenting with > changes that have not yet made it through ARC. Regardless, I don't see > the issue here. Ubuntu, et al. are quite successful despite the lack of > adherence to the Sys V filesystem specification from a user perspective.
No, that is the issue. Being outside the ARC process, guidance beyond what's in filesystem(5) (which comes from a product, Solaris, that's developed in the ARC process), is needed. > I won't debate the merits, etc. of this with your nor comment on what > should or should not be done architecturally as that isn't my > responsibility. I'll just simply say that I see no issue with packaging > for /usr as most packages are moving towards, and that I believe most > users will expect that. I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree. The namespace issues are important. At the very least IPS needs to deal sanely with: - two or more pkgs in one repository with actions - a user trying to install one or more pkgs whose actions would conflict with those a pkg that's already installed Additionally we could use a namespace registry (preferably one that could be used by Linux distros too). Even then we'd need rules as to whether new conflicts can be created, and conflict resolution. E.g., what happens if a project wants to deliver /bin/foo directly with OpenSolaris, via a consolidation, and a third-party has already registered that name? Nico -- _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
