Gary Winiger wrote: >>>Additionally, there is an existing contract at >>>http://sac.eng.sun.com/Archives/CaseLog/arc/PSARC/2005/399/contract-02 >>> >>>The contract says: >>>libpolkit Volatile >>> >>>This covers all of libpolkit interfaces, so the project team believes >>>no new contract is needed. > > > And that contract is between the SUPPLIER solaris/volmgt/utility > and CONSUMER jds/gnome/file-manager, jds/gnome/applications > it is also incorrectly (and poorly) specifies the use of > authorizations not polkit "privileges" > What does this case deal with? Volume management authorizations? > What does the LSARC dependent case consume? Volume management > authorizations?
libpolkit is part of category solaris/library/libpolkit, but the category wasn't noted. > > The point is that this case is exporting polkit "privileges" > as volatile and it is not the Bugster solaris/volmgt/utility > and the consuming case is not importing the HAL volume management > authorizations. And this whole thing is cross consolidation. > This is exactly what contracts are designed for. > > If someone wishes to run a separate libpolkit case which > SUPPLIES all the "privileges" and contracts to each CONSUMER, > that would be fine. > > It just seems to me that the ARC rules call for a contract > which SUPPLIES the "privileges" consumed to jds/gnome/??? > and that isn't the existant contract. The libpolkit "privileges" are part of the libpolkit interfaces. I thought this contract did intend to cover solaris/library/libpolkit even if that category was missing since the interface noted libpolkit. To clarify the contract, we will work with the interface consumer to make a new contract which will note the solaris/library/libpolkit category. Phi
