Darren J Moffat wrote: > > jan damborsky wrote: > >> Bart Smaalders wrote: > >>> Jason Zhao wrote: > >>>> By adding this, it will be convenient for administrator. > >>>> Especially, when > >>>> there is some packages were added by "pkgadd", but there is no > >>>> index for > >>>> these packages in /var/pkg, and most of important the administrator > >>>> know > >>>> what he needs to do and what he is doing. It will be easy to only > >>>> add one > >>>> single package, otherwise, it will be time consuming to add them all. > >>> > > >>> > >>>> Anyway, it brings flexible works. > >>> So does using a binary editor on your raw disk to modify your > >>> filesystem. It still doesn't mean it's a good idea. > >> > >> But it definitely doesn't imply it is a bad idea. > >> If I know what/why/how, I should be allowed to do this. > >> I think that following statement better explains > >> the philosophy I prefer as far as taking > >> restrictive versus liberal approach is concerned: > > > > I agree with Bart here this is just not functionality that should be > > in the pkg command by default. If you want it that badly implement > > it yourself and keep it as a set of local patches. > > > > I personally think it is far too dangerous. > > > > Compare this to what what ZFS does. You can if you really don't are > > about your data turn off checksuming for it on a per dataset basis, > > but even if you do that ZFS doesn't allow you to turn it off for > > metadata. > > > >> "/UNIX was not designed to stop its users from doing stupid things, > >> as that would also stop them from doing clever things./" > > > > IMO that philosophy is old and out dated. > > Yes, it is old, but I might disagree it is out dated. > > > Users don't put their hands up and say "sorry I did a stupid thing" > > they shout and scream at the vendor and blame the system for not > > protecting them. > > Well, but since other tools on the system allow to do "stupid things", > I can imagine, that if/when user runs into scenario which is not allowed > to be solved by pkg itself, other ways will be found and the result > will be even worse, since you will need to just guess, what was > actually done. > > On the other hand, if you provide a way to do it using standard > tools, you have control over how it will be done. And when user starts > to scream, you have records about where/what/how and you can > start asking why. > > In the former case, you might be out out of luck, since there are > no records/history you might inspect. > > > > > We have do have to stop users doing stupid things because stupid > > things can lead to data corruption, security vulnerabilities and > > pissed of people. > > I agree this that the default behavior should take care > of this. But I am not convinced it should be the only one > implemented.
Do you know that for example SUSE YaST uses the options --nodeps --force to install packages by default? I agree that some safety is needed, but why I must write some patches when I have this possibility on non-Solaris systems? Cheers, -- Alexander Eremin <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
