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: >
From what I've seen from IPS so far, there are two (main) purposes to a packaging system. 1) Put bits on disk. 2) Make sure the installed bits work. What we've said is that we can't ensure 2 with a no-deps option, which reduces IPS to simply doing 1. If 2 isn't important to your scenario, by all means, use tar balls or some other method to accomplish getting the bits on to the disk, but I think we have higher goals for IPS than a glorified tar ball deliverer. What a dependency should mean is, "without X, I can not run as specified, period". As others have mentioned, there may well be bugs in our packaging, please file bugs against those as you encounter them. We're not requiring any customer/client to use pkg to install software. What I do think we're saying is that if you want to use pkg to help make sure you've got a working system, you have to play by the rules, or convince us that the rules need to be changed. Brock [snip] _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
