On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:38:52AM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: > > Our appliance needs to both add and remove packages on upgrade. For > > package addition, I believe we need to make a version of 'entire' that > > has 'require' dependencies. > > No, entire should have incorporate dependencies exclusively. Otherwise it > gets too confusing.
Confusing for who? Users cannot see this. > You want a group package that depends on all of your appliance-specific > software. It'll act much in the way slim_install did: by being part of the > default install, it's on every system, and it will get upgraded on every > image-update, bringing in with it new packages as necessary. This sounds like what I'm suggesting but just using a different name. What's the advantage of a different name? Note that we don't have or need the entire encorporation AFAIK. > > My question is around package removal. Obviously, today the solution is > > to deliver a new version of the removed package that is empty. But what > > are the plans in the future? Will the above plan impact these plans > > negatively, or will we be safe? > > You'll be fine. We'll end up adding metadata to packages which should be > deleted when you upgrade to that version, and that ought to mesh just fine > with the group package mechanism. Thanks! regards john _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
