Peter Tribble wrote:
On 4/11/07, John Plocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Or, looking at it the other way, packages map to the
output of an independent, distributed development
team. They are the ultimate "consolidation"
boundary - everything within a package is delivered
together as a unit and the package is expected to
always be self-consistent.
So what you're saying - explicitly - is that packages are only a
meaningful abstraction for the development process and aren't
designed to deliver useful units of functionality for customers?
And yet it's us administrators who have to deal with the
packaging system, while the development process is based
around features and code. I'm arguing that packaging should
be based on the functional needs of users/customers
rather than being an artifact of the development process.
Packages should represent a minimization boundary; e.g. they
are either installed or not installed depending on the
proposed use of the system.
Solaris has areas where packages are too fine-grained,
it also has areas where the packages are much too large
to be useful in this fashion.
Package refactorization is a significant amount of work,
and would be greatly aided by better tools.
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
