On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:16:37PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote: > Danek Duvall wrote: > > But what would the grounds be for a veto, anyway? It's not clear to me how > > that would actually be useful. > > There are those who believe that an attempt to uninstall a running > service should be rejected. > > (Personally, I disagree with them - [...]
Note that this is something that the pkg system itself could enforce should it really matter. Package removal vetos can/should only really relate to some sort of dynamic dependency(ies) not known to the pkg system. I can't think of any other than "the software to be removed is currently running," which in the case of SMF services is easy to detect/address. So I see no need for preremove scripting or porting of such scripts, at least not w.r.t. removal veto. IIRC preinstall is like checkinstall: it can gather data needed by CAS, but unlike checkinstall it requires no interaction, so that pkgask(1M) can be avoided for pkgs that have no checkinstall script. Since there are no CAS in IPS there's no need for this SVR4 packaging cruft. Nico -- _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
