On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:15:30PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On 03/24/10 11:56 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:22:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote: > >>On 03/24/10 02:09 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >>>That's fine with me, but you need to fix the "Committed" value for your > >>>package names -- clearly they are not Committed, since you know you'll > >>>be changing them soon. > >>Package names should be no less than Committed, especially now that > >>IPS can refer to a package using an older name. Since package names > >>are how package dependencies are built, and how software is bundled > >>and installed, anything less than Committed doesn't make sense to > >>me. > >I thought IPS supports pkg renaming, so why should pkg names be > >Committed? > > Indeed. There are more package renames and breakups in the works > too -- the big change to hierarchical names was just the first > round. > > Furthermore, I seem to recall that IPS packaging in Open Solaris has > automatic dependency tracking, which isn't so dependent on package > names but on package manifests.
But it's limited. I have to agree with Seb. Nico --
