Liane Praza wrote: > (I'm not going to respond to every point. I think I've made the case > I'd like to make, and don't need to subject everyone to our quibbling > about who is more correct. It won't resolve anything without someone > actually writing a case which establishes precedent for a wide variety > of software.) > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Liane Praza wrote: >>> Ah, the value-add location like we had with /usr/sfw/gcc or value-add >>> repository of /opt/sfw? >> >> No, not necessarily in a different path! Just a different >> *respository* for the package. Where the package installs into is not >> relevant (IMO) to this particular discussion. > > Sure, but how do I know I'm supposed to install stuff from the other > repository? You've just changed "different path" to "different > repository".
You have a pick list available in the installation tool. It doesn't actually need to be a different repository, the integration and support level could be part of the package description. The problem with the "path" solution is that it has to be applied at the user level, each user picking and choosing amongst choices they did not know existed. The "repository" solution is done by the administrator. And with IPS, it is done using the same method used to install the rest of the system. If you start creating meta-clusters and the like, there is no ghetto created at all. -- blu There are two rules in life: Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
