* Jim Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-28 19:21]:
> Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > Or take a copy of the source and experiment with some
> > splitting/refactoring. It's pretty easy to break things apart and try
> > out various ideas.
>
> Minimalists would likely want to see SUNWcs broken up into lots of tiny
> pieces. Yet there appears to be interest in this alias to create even
> larger packages and let filters handle the details. Are these two ideas
> in direct contrast?
Nope. There are three themes here:
1. Break the historically accreted packages up into smaller units
based on feature definitions (or similarities), private
dependencies, and relative rates of change. SUNWcs needs to be
broken up, as it's so big that it (a) makes real minimization
difficult, and (b) participates in lots of SUNWcs <- other package
<- SUNWcs self-loops, which are annoying.
2. Combine packages that were split only for reasons of convention.
At present, these reasons are the root/usr split and the separate
packages for multiple architectures. The client handles/will
handle these cases automatically, based on the image's properties.
(Filtering is part of this, although there is also aspects driven
by the image type.)
3. Encode the cluster/metaclusters/Mike G's features/etc groupings as
convenient, retrievable group packages. In the current
repository, the slim_cd, slim_install, and redistributable
packages are examples of these.
I believe these can be pursued consistently: someone pursuing a small
or custom install image would be interested in 1 and 2, but ignore
packages created to satisfy 3. Folks trying to ease installation of a
particular stack of related software are all about 3. I suppose we
could look at 1 and 2 being about the minimal building blocks, and 3
being about sets of blocks, if Lego analogies are okay...
- Stephen
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
