> Then you'll have to re-create your package. If I put the work, which was normally done in postinstall, postremove, preinstall and preremove into SMF, how can I ensure that the sysadmin doesn't accidentally enable package's SMF method which does the equivalent of preremove or postremove?
> That's fine, we'll just have to disagree. No we won't, because this is costing money. Where can I send the bill, please? > See this > blog entry for more > information: > > http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/pkg_1_a_no_scripting This must be the Nth time you have pointed me to that blog, so let me in turn point certain things out: a) you seem to only echo what others have mused on the subject, and seem to explicitly hold that which they have mused about as absolute right and correct way to do and even think about things b) I have read that blog about five minutes after it was posted, and it was posted on September 7, 2007 And I knew, right there and then, that we're going to be in heaps of trouble, if that "vision" was allowed to continue. Engineers aren't infallible. We make mistakes too, and are subject to the NIH syndrome, and oft times subject to living in our own little perfect worlds. The key to success is listening to our customers, study how they use the product, ask them what their needs are, spend the time with them in the trenches, instead of isolating oneself, and trying to solve non-existent problems by making them even worse. And your customers, paying customers, in this day and age, are mostly experienced system administrators or even better, system engineers, who know exactly what the issues are and what they want and need. They don't need someone else to tell them what they want, nor do they need someone else to decide what's good for them. > You view usage of SMF as an abuse, but I view it as a > change of > execution context. pkg(5) doesn't say that you can't > have scripting, it > just says that you can't have scripting as part of > the package execution > context. Perhaps you can come up with a solution for my first question above, on how to stop a sysadmin from inadvertently running an SMF method which must not execute until the package is removed? And what about these SMF methods lingering around for the life of the package? All the fancy musings, and all the fancy blog entries can not hide the fact that IPS is an artificial solution which has not been thouroughly thought through. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
