--- "Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry about that mess...here's another try. > > > The initial area of confusion hits with the > > distinction between packages and patches -- I know > > there's a difference between releasing > > functionality and fixing something that's > > broken. That's not a distinction, by and > > large, that is not made in the Linux world. If > > I'm running > > foo-1.1.1 and I need to update something, I find > > foo-1.1.2 or greater. There's no question > > that there's some downside with this approach, as > > new functionality can risk breakage, but that's > > what release notes are for. Similarly, package > > naming and dependency resolution go hand in > > hand. Why can't the package for > > foo-1.1.2 be named that instead of 118974-37, and > why > > can't my attempt to add foo-1.1.2 at least notify > > me of the other packages I need to add to handle > the > > dependencies and offer to get them for > > me. > > > Last night I was applying several security > > patches to Solaris 10 11/06. Of the 8, 6 failed > > to install with no information or explanation > other > > than a "failed" notice which scrolled away > > from me fairly quickly. I don't know if it > > was a dependency, a configuration, user error. > > Had I not been watching it, I wouldn't have known > > it failed at all. > > > I think some of this starts out with the development > model. New > work all takes place on the next release after the > production > release (and I suspect a tiny bit happens for the > one after that > even). Bug fixes get backported if they're likely to > be a significant > problem, or based on customer demand. Other bug > fixes probably come > about when a bug is found or reported in a supported > release that's > not apparent in the release under development. Bug > fixes probably > involve for the most part the smallest set of > changes possible > (simplifying testing, perhaps), although the scope > of a patch grows > in later revisions as fixes for additional bugs in > the same and > closely related files get added. > > Very rarely does a patch add a new package, it just > makes minor > updates to an existing one. > > I think another factor might be the historical > distribution model, > mostly via CDs or DVDs.
The whole development model is because there is no other way to do it since the packaging tools will not allow anything else. There is no choice but to create the patch system. Likewise the distribution model. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
