Hi Bart, Bart Smaalders p??e v ?t 14. 01. 2010 v 13:43 -0800: > On 01/13/10 23:12, Milan Jurik wrote: > > >> In the early phases of the EMI project, we actually considered making > >> /var/svc/manifest a symlink. The feedback that we received, however, > >> indicated that it would no play well with SVR4 packaging. See > >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/2008-April/004111.html. > >> We also received indications that the symlink would not play well with > >> pkg(5), but I don't have any emails that I can refer you to for that. > >> > > > > But that is problem of packaging system (both of them), which should be > > fixed to deal with such situations (is it the first time when we are > > doing such change on filesystem hierarchy?). Why should we introduce > > such misleading "duplication" of places? Any benefit to have 2 places? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Milan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opensolaris-arc mailing list > > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org > > > The issue is that if some package treat /var/svc/manifest as a symlink, > and others as a directory, we'll end up w/ problems. The packaging > system cannot deal with discordant views of the file system hierarchy > in a rational fashion. We can always fix the packages in the wos, but > third parties may deliver SMF manifests to a directory named > /var/svc/manifest for years. It's best that we leave it there to prevent > problems. >
I am very well aware of this problem but these situations happen from time to time. It would be good to find some solution. Because IPS has no interactive support (yet?), then such special case (symlink vs. dir) could be evaluated based on "package importance". Not sure if it can be 100% safe, some analysis would be needed. But that is packaging system problem, not for this case and not for I-team of this case, of course. Why not obsolete /var/svc/manifest? Has I-team some usage of it in the future except backward compatibility? Best regards, Milan
