Hi Carsten,

Am 27.01.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Carsten Grzemba <[email protected]>:
> Some questions
> 
> 1. In Solaris11 is an SMF 'manifest-import' which can triggered if a new SMF 
> is installed. But this SMF covers only the standard locations for SMF 
> /lib/svc/manifest and /var/svc/manifest. I would prefer to use this SMF and 
> install our SMF's also in standard location /var/svc/manifest.

I would also go with default locations.

> 2. Package Repositories: How want we handle our concept of catalogs unstable, 
> testing, ... Want we cover this with different repositories/publishers?

I am not sure about this one, also not about the drawbacks of either solution.
It should be possible to mix and match packages from different catalogs.

> 3. Package naming: Our SVR4 packages use a "flat" namespace. IPS use a 
> hirachical one but this is only cosmetics. There are aome lists of the 
> relation of SVR4 and IPS names for some application like this:
> https://github.com/MrStaticVoid/spec-files-extra/blob/master/experimental/packagenames.sort_newnames.ts
> Should we keep the flat namespace and prefix with opencsw or also establish 
> such hierachic?

library/ sounds useful, I would make that one automatic. Regarding the others I 
tend
to mimic the classification Oracle uses.

> 4. Packages for x86 and Sparc: IPS can deliver both architectures in one 
> package. Has anyone some experience in building dual-arch IPS packages. Have 
> we made the mgar platform target mandatory for that?

Right, I thought about that too, it should be fairly easy as GAR can already
build multiple trees for one package, however we don’t have one for Sparc *and*
x86 in one recipe. There are some adjustments in gar.conf.mk needed. But this
is definitely needed. Having one tree for Sparc and x86 is very important IMHO.


Best regards

  — Dago

--
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to 
do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to