Bart Smaalders wrote: > > Just a few things that are broken w/ SVr4 packages: > > 1) there is no upgrade
Would be useful. Yet, this could be solved by sun providing actions(?) for this sort of thing. Or just defining some standards. blastwave has solved this issue, by defining internal packaging standards to preserve package state across upgrades. Works quite well. > 2) scripting interfaces for package creators are toxic They are ugly, yes. But eliminating scripting, is not a good "solution" for this. > 3) versioning is undefined That's like saying, that X11 is broken, because it doesnt tightly define [insert GUI system feature here]. versioning is left open. If sun/whoever, wants to set a versioning standard, then SVr4 packaging does not get in the way of that at all. > 9) patching is not addressed at all That could actually be an advantange. more below, on patching.. > 5) redelivery of a package is required even if one file changes That's what patching is for. Done RIGHT, that is. Sun does patching... poorly. But that's a procedural problem within Sun, imo. Even with IPS, sun is going to have to do the equivalent of "patching", even if you put up smoke and mirrors to call it by another name. It's still going to suck, if sun doesnt change their back end approach to it, rather than just changing the technology front end. Changing gears a little; In my opinion, the whole approach to patching+SVR4 should be changed, to make "a patch" be a mechanism to update SUNWfoo VERSION 1.2.3_FCS10rev1 to SUNWfoo VERSION 1.2.3_FCS10rev4 Conceptually, I think that's what IPS kind of plans on doing. The thing is, you dont have to throw out SVR4 packaging to handle that concept. > 4) metatdata (.clustertoc, pkghistory) is stored elsewhere > 6) networking support is laughable > 7) no dependency following easily doable at a higher level. cf: blastwave.org FYI, people have modded pkg-get, to also handle.. *drumroll...* patching. I just havent had enough time to really evaluate and integrate that code myself. > 8) Contents file a huge performance problem eh... sun was all ready to fix that "problem" with sol10 FCS. Too bad they botched it. But apparently, that problem wasnt enough to throw out SVR4 packaging altogether then, so why should it be now? _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
