Dave Miner writes: > My contention, and I think others who've spent a lot of time looking at > it would agree, is that the present architecture is fundamentally > flawed. Building patches as a layer on top of packages, and then having > a packaging system which is unaware of that layer above it, is > untenable; we've managed to prove that pretty well by experiment on > y'all over the last 15 years. So I don't see how you can separate the > two and say that "packaging is fine" and "patching is broken". They've > had an equal hand in creating the mess that exists.
I'd separate them by refusing to ship patches, and shipping only upgraded intact packages -- perhaps frequent Update-like releases. I agree that the patching scheme is untenable, I'm just not so sure that says anything about the unadorned SVr4 packaging underneath. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
