Well, my hope was to provide the bits exactly as the packages would appear in OpenSolaris. If it would be easier to just rename around the conflicts for the beta, then so be it!
James Carlson wrote: > Brian Utterback writes: >> There are replacements for ntpdate, ntpq and ntptrace which have the >> same name, but >> they are pretty much backwards compatible. This is something I will be >> looking at >> more closely to see if there are any caveats. > > I'd simply ship them under different names or under a different > directory. This is just a beta test, right? Why try to cause > trouble? > >> There is a manifest and method to go with ntpd. The method is called >> xntp and the >> manifest is ntp.xml. So, the methods could happily co-exist, but the >> manifest has >> a problem. I suppose we could call the manifest ntp4.xml and the method ntp. > > That should be fine. > >> Unfortunately, SMF currently is happy accepting "ntp" when a FMRI is >> expected. > > It's "happy" because that's the abbreviated name of the FMRI: > > svc:/network/ntp:default > ^^^ > > If you have one called ntp and the other called ntp4, you won't have a > problem. > > Another option would be to create this: > > svc:/network/ntp:ntp4 > > ... analogous to svc:/network/physical:default and > svc:/network/physical:nwam, which are alternative implementations of > the network start-up mechanism. > >> Since running ntpd and xntpd are mutually exclusive, it would certainly >> be nice >> to have them both in a single manifest, but since we will be delivering >> ntpd into >> the SFW consolidation and xntpd is in ON, this is problematic. > > I don't see how having them in the same manifest helps. In fact, I > think it hurts a *LOT* in that you will be causing yourself trouble to > have the same file delivered by two different packages. > > Don't confuse manifests (an internal implementation detail) with the > administrative features -- the FMRIs. > >> On the other hand, we might very well be able to replace all the current >> bits with >> the new ones. The ntpd and xntpd daemons are very nearly compatible and >> accept >> very nearly the same configuration options. Or I should say that ntpd is >> backwards >> compatible with xntpd, except for the keywords that we added at Sun. >> Again, I >> will be looking at the compatibility issues more closely. >> >> But there still are the man pages for ntpdate, ntpq and ntptrace which >> are already installed. > > I'm still confused about why you would do this, when installing it > alongside the old one seems so much simpler for something that's just > a beta test. > -- blu "You've added a new disk. Do you want to replace your current drive, protect your data from a drive failure or expand your storage capacity?" - Disk management as it should be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
