Roland, can you reevaluate this change once again, please? It will simplify upgrade and testing and there is no real benefit for all in SUNWcsu.
Best regards, Milan mary ding p??e v ne 21. 06. 2009 v 14:01 -0700: > Roland, Dave and Alan: > > For Nevada, it might not be an issue. However, I had seen problems in > update releases. Basically SUNWcsu always get pkgrm during upgrade > since it had VERSION=1000, so any packages that had hard link to isexec > also needs to be pkgrm and pkgadd back again in s10 updates. > > In Nevada, since ON always redeliver with newer version and rev#, it is > not an issue because all ON packages will be pkgadd. > > With OSOL, I do not believe it will be a problem. > > > > > Roland Mainz wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Roland Mainz wrote: > >>> Since libcmd and /usr/bin/alias are in SUNWcsu already it doesn't make > >>> sense to try to split hardlinks over multiple packages (I don't even > >>> know whether that's possible without opening a "can of worms" somehow). > >> It's possible, as shown by the plethora of commands split across a wide > >> range of packages that have hard links to isaexec. (32 packages on the > >> SXCE 116 machine I just checked.) > > > > Mhhh... Ok... but I am not sure whether it makes sense to split it > > between "SUNWcsu" and "SUNWesu" ([1]) since the code lives in > > libcmd.so.1 which is already (even now, ksh93-integration update2 only > > delivers bugfixes in this case) in the "SUNWcsl" package (= "SUNWcsu"'s > > counterpart for shared libraries). From the technical viewpoint it's > > possible... > > > > [1]=Just curious: Why was this split originally made, e.g. why are the > > basic POSIX/SUS commands split over multiple packages (sounds like a > > good way to cause trouble for script writers) ? > > > > ---- > > > > Bye, > > Roland > > > > _______________________________________________ > ksh93-integration-discuss mailing list > ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss
