To begin the design phase on http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/os_dev_process/#development-process
which involves the production of material for ARC review and test plans, among other things, we need to exit the idea phase. (The diagrams, while accurate, don't really allow any understanding of how the phases actually overlap...) The "one pager" is the typical document that announces to ARC the intent to pursue a project. I've written an initial draft and placed it for review here: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sch/pkg-arc/ (It's also included below.) Comments welcomed. Once we iterate a bit (but not indefinitely, as it's an introduction/announcement), we can send it into the ARC machinery, which will assign various numbers, etc. - Stephen ---- Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.31 07/08/08 SMI This information is Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: pkg(5): image packaging system 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Stephen Hahn, Sun Microsystems 1.3. Date of This Document: 02/26/2008 1.4. Name of Major Document Customer(s)/Consumer(s): 1.4.1. The Community you expect to review your project: Install and Packaging CG 1.4.2. The ARC(s) you expect to review your project: PSARC 1.5. Email Aliases: 1.5.2. Responsible Engineer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.5.4. Interest List: [email protected] 2. Project Summary 2.1. Project Description: The image packaging system, pkg(5), is a portable software packaging and delivery system intended to allow efficient, observable, and controllable transitions between known configurations of software content. At a minimum, it is intended to combine in a more usable fashion the functionality of the current packaging and patching utilities used with the historical Solaris releases. The project includes a set of recommended changes to the existing software groupings--the package definitions--in an attempt to produce a more rational and flexible organization of the current components. 2.2. Risks and Assumptions: It is assumed that the legacy packaging system functionality can be preserved to support compatibility of existing packages. It is further assumed that, if migration and compatibility practices are made available, that the provision of a new packaging mechanism will be followed by adoption. It is asserted that the refactoring and renaming of the existing package graph is not achievable with reasonable cost and duration with the existing packaging/patching/installation software. It is assumed that compatibility with the existing graph can be preserved, to support the earlier assumption on preserving legacy package operations. It is assumed that binary software delivery is the preferred mechanism, over source build-based delivery, for a significant majority of the deployment and development needs associated with the operating system. 3. Business Summary 3.1. Problem Area: Deficits in the current packaging, patching, and installation tool set affect potentially all parties interacting with the historical Solaris releases and their successors. Such deficits include: - lack of support for dependency-based retrieval during package installation, - coarse and incorrect dependencies, limiting use for construction of appliances or other specific-purpose systems, - lack of versioning and control over change, - forced interactivity, - integration with virtualized systems, particularly patching performance, - lack of safety, - high developer costs around package and patch creation and maintenance, - lack of support for unprivileged package and patch installation, - lack of awareness of ZFS and smf(5), - late or no correctness checking, and - minimal ease of use. An additional cost, beyond those associated with a specific operating system, is the absence of a portable and efficient cross-platform software delivery system for cross-platform (or minimally platform-dependent) software. 3.2. Market/Requester: Distribution providers and software content providers utilizing the legacy packaging system have requested substantial changes to achieve greater control over maintenance costs and to increase development efficiencies. Various customers of the historical Solaris release have asked for substantial capabilities not present in the legacy packaging system. Finally, multiplatform packaging capabilities are of interest to a number of software content providers. 3.3. Business Justification: See 3.1 and 3.2. 3.4. Competitive Analysis: Every major operating system vendor--and most upcoming new vendors--offers a form of networked software delivery and updates. Well known companies with such technologies are Microsoft, Red Hat, Apple, and Canonical; new companies include rPath. Non-profit entities with equivalent technology include the Debian Project. 3.5. Opportunity Window/Exposure: The project team asserts that, for Solaris to remain competitive in terms of software delivery functionality, Solaris 10 should be the last Minor release to not offer a packaging system that meets or exceeds the minimal needs stated in 3.1 and 3.2. 3.6. How will you know when you are done?: In terms of basic capabilities, we can examine each component. Project completion on the retrieval side can be measured by achieving the capability of managing mixed content from a variety of publishers, with potentially distinct entitlement regimes. On the publication side, completion of the initial project is reached once the goals around dependency and correctness checking (and failure handling) are met for both the server and the publication client. Finally, ease of use (or familiarity) must match or exceed that of other leading packaging systems. In terms of the product as a whole, we must be able to upgrade, with some statement about limitations on fidelity, a system installed using the legacy packaging components such that it can be further updated using the image packaging system. 4. Technical Description: 4.1. Details: pkg(5) is a network-oriented binary packaging system. Although it will have on-disk representations for versioned packages, the primary expected use for installation of software will be between an intelligent client and one or more relatively simple servers. Additionally, the project defines a client-server publication mechanism, in which the client offers up transactions on packages, and the server evaluates those transactions for completeness and/or safety prior to making them available for retrieval by clients. The initial transport will be HTTP and HTTPS, protocols around which most sites have developed mature access policies. Support for most common HTTP/HTTPS load-balancing, redirection, and proxying techniques will be implemented, making the system easy to deploy in a variety of scenarios. Additional transports may be investigated during the course of the project or as future work. The project does not define a default mechanism for building software as part of the packaging process. The project team believes strongly that software builds are a separate function, and probably also agrees that different kinds of software may require different build techniques. More controversially, the project, in an attempt to increase system safety and to reduce developer burden, removes the notion of arbitrary context scripting from packaging. (This removal means that the legacy packaging system must remain on the system for long-term compatibility.) Empirical evidence from the prototype phase has so far borne out this decision. 4.2. Bug/RFE Number(s): As an example of the kinds of defects and RFEs intended to be resolved by this project, we present the following selection of bug IDs from the past 15 years: 1105830 pkgadd and pkgrm should be able to handle dependency ordering 1149607 Package dependencies hidden within a cluster. 1165888 RFE: allow non-root users to install software using the package mechanis 1184238 patches should be fully managed by package utilites 1208431 pkgrm with no arguments defaults to all 1249015 pkgadd requires root access 4202113 pkginfo command is ridiculously slow 4240078 pkgadd should not allow an intel package to install on Sparc and visa-ve 4385316 RFE Support pkgadd of clusters 4480153 Improvements desired for pkg management 4762470 pkgadd: soft dependencies 4795539 pkgadd should check dependencies of all packages provided on the command 4847723 rem_drv in preremove scripts should have consistent usage model 4939605 grep-friendly pkgchk -l variant desired 5012345 request for tool to list package dependencies 6208580 pkgadd/pkgrm should be smarter about dependancies 6246595 Sun's package management needs improvement 6491381 Create audit log for packaging and patch commads In contrast, 1181241 wants to split large binary across multiple floppies with pkgmk will not be addressed by this proposal. 4.3. In Scope: Package-service delivery and containment relationships. Package installation behaviour in virtualized environments. 4.4. Out of Scope: Specific operational scenarios for repositories operated by Sun Microsystems. Provision of a GUI/BUI for package management. Specific package contents and manifests. 4.5. Interfaces: pkg(5) will present a substantial set of new and modified interfaces to the core system. In particular, documented definitions of - retrieval client CLI, - publication client CLI, - administrative and server CLIs, - client metadata representations, - server metadata representations, - retrieval and publication protocol operations, - a dynamic language API, - package metadata conventions, - available package constituents ("actions"), and - package naming and versioning conventions, will be presented as interfaces introduced by this project. It is possible that some of the nominally private interfaces associated with legacy packaging will be affected; at a minimum, files previously delivered via legacy packaging will no longer be tracked by the legacy system. This outcome could result in a correctly functioning system that presents very differently in terms of file-package membership when interrogated using the legacy packaging API. Various components of the project will be introduced at each stability and/or commitment level. The components are being engineered such that the public interfaces can be evolved compatibly, once the initial development is complete. (In fact, the prototype is expected to support this evolution during the development phase.) The components are currently implemented in Python (PSARC/2005/532, PSARC/2005/555, PSARC/2006/666). 4.6. Doc Impact: The project expects to provide reference manual pages for each of the groups of interface identified above. Furthermore, the project expects to provide a Developer's Guide to replace the current Application Packager's Guide. 4.7. Admin/Config Impact: Substantial new capabilities in software installation will become available. A related project to produce a package manipulation GUI is being pursued. 4.8. HA Impact: None known; dependent on specific impacts of legacy packaging on these capabilities. 4.9. I18N/L10N Impact: Commands will require localization, as will any publically committed library or equivalent APIs. 4.10. Packaging & Delivery: All package, cluster, and metacluster boundaries will be examined in the course of the project. The primary upgrade mechanism for operating systems using pkg(5) will be achieved via pkg(5) components; this mechanism is expected to replace the current standalone upgrade and LiveUpgrade paths. The replacement is expected, in concert with the SnapUpgrade project, to present capabilities that equal or exceed those of LiveUpgrade. 4.11. Security Impact: In the current implementation, the protocol is built atop access to HTTP and/or HTTPS. Accordingly, the server side will potentially listen on ports associated with those services. The server and client side will require access to key and certificate management interfaces. 4.12. Dependencies: The project is dependent on SnapUpgrade for coherent collection, organization, and activation of filesystem snapshots. 5. Reference Documents: Project site: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/pkg/ Project team members have written a number of informal essays on various goals--problems to solve, outcomes to avoid, hopes to realize--on aspects of the project: - General observations: http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/observations_on_packaging - On testability and complexity costs with the current patching methods: http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/rethinking_patching - Eliminating scripting in a packaging system http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/pkg_1_a_no_scripting - Keep software builds separate from software delivery: http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/pkg_leaving_the_build_system - Keeping critical metadata back the packaging system, rather than in the installer: http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/pkg_no_more_installer_magic Related efforts in the Caiman project: - Snap Upgrade, http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/Snap_Upgrade/ - Distribution Constructor, http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/Constructor/ 6. Resources and Schedule: 6.1. Projected Availability: CY2008 6.2. Cost of Effort: Unable to estimate at present time. 6.4. Product Approval Committee requested information: 6.4.1. Consolidation or Component Name: ON 6.5. ARC review type: Standard. 6.6. ARC Exposure: open 6.6.1. Rationale: Part of OpenSolaris 7. Prototype Availability: 7.1. Prototype Availability: Prototype exit criteria are: ability to support multiple transports, some access control capability, constrained dependency support, bulk of OpenSolaris-specific actions. 7.2. Prototype Cost: Unable to estimate. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
