Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun Jan 09 18:11:12 -0500 2011:
> errr... maybe I'm missing something here. But we already have a
> "test"/safety check. it works with pkg-get, pkgutil, and even plain
> old
> pkgadd.
> Declare a dependency on SUNWslpu.
Ok, ignore the last portion of my previous reply. This landed while I
was composing that. This is good, but not great. The problems with
it are:
1. It sill makes an admin find this package from some (potentially
inconvenient) location.
2. We've been previously bitten by name changes in SUNW packages.
This would be a maintainer burden going forward if it happened.
3. Some of the toolchain needs modification to handle this nicely.
None of these by themselves are showstoppers, but taken as a whole,
they're not very attractive. Modifying the tools is the easiest to
swallow.[1] The name change issue is only a potentiality but James
has pointed out that this _has_ been a problem with other packages
previously.
What do you say to sunslp vs openslp?
Thanks
-Ben
[1] Peter B: Why do you have your tools handle SUNW deps the way they
do?
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
