On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 08:54 -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: > > With regard to SUNWgnome-base-libs, it would make sense to split it into > > individual packages per community tarball to follow the IPS packaging > > conventions. > > Part of the reason why we initially put multiple upstream modules into > packages like this was because the package names are typically listed > as "Uncommitted". Packaging like this gives us some freedom to add or > remove modules without affecting the package naming so much.
I know, I was involved in coming up with these package names. Keeping the package names stable helped us keep upgrades simple. Another reason was that SVr4 packaging performs very poorly for a large number of packages. > I am guessing these sorts of ARC concerns are just not such a big deal > now, or moving forward. Is this the case? It wasn't really an ARC concern. It was our decision and it made sense at the time. Hopefully IPS will be better at dealing with packaging changes / upgrades (although currently I don't think it is). Laca _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
