Hi Shawn, Shawn Walker p????e v ne 16. 09. 2007 v 16:32 -0500: > On 16/09/2007, Peter Tribble <peter.tribble at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/16/07, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > > > > > > That's why I think Danek's suggestion about integrating functionality > > > scripts need into the packaging system and making them use it instead > > > of being able to do their own thing is preferable. > > > > There was a time I liked this idea. Then the realization that it's > > not quite so simple dawns. > > > > Is it really feasible to expect the packaging system to understand all > > possible administrative actions that might be necessary for all software > > in all possible install contexts - many of which do not yet exist and > > will not be tested? > > The idea here is to limit what the possible administrative actions > are. When it comes down to it, you really don't want packages doing a > bunch of things they're not supposed to be doing. It's easier to add > specific functionality to allow packages to do things (in my opinion) > than it is to try to keep them from doing a bunch of things. >
And if you need more? Like e.g. run "something" to register modules to your own software? Or modify your software configuration? All these are very common, but action specific to very small set of packages. And these are still simple actions. Yes, they can be delivered as modules by packaging system. But where is the benefit against extensible tool set like in other package management systems? > > I worry about the burden imposed on software suppliers, who have > > a new mechanism to learn and support. They have to provide > > something that is different from prior releases, and that behaves > > differently from other platforms. > > Every platform behaves differently, so that's not much of a > justification. In addition, I would expect that, no matter what is Yes, they behave, but in most cases you can just take care about input and output variables and do what you want. Are you expecting that in open source package management system somebody will be happy with limits, with forcing to some view on "the world"? > adopted here, the mechanism for OpenSolaris is going to be wildly > different regardless of whether or not scripting is supported from > Solaris. As such, there is going to be a support burden regardless of > what happens. The package structure is certainly going to change from > everything I'm seeing. > Yes, it seems like revolution. But sometimes evolution is much better. In the first case it could lead to "permanent revolution"... Best regards, Milan
